People v. Wright
| Decision Date | 28 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41080,41080 |
| Citation | 248 N.E.2d 78,42 Ill.2d 457 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Frank WRIGHT, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, Chicago (Herbert Becker, Norman W. Fishman and James J. Doherty, Asst. Public Defenders, of counsel), appointed by the court, for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and Michael D. Stevenson, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.
The defendant, Frank Wright, was found guilty of the unlawful possession of heroin following a bench trial and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 3 to 5 years. He now appeals on constitutional grounds.
The defendant was arrested about 6:30 A.M. on October 11, 1966, at a restaurant at 319 East 47th Street in Chicago by Officer Cantrell of the Chicago Police Department. Cantrell testified that he was in the vicinity of the restaurant when an informer told him that a man by the name of 'Frank' was in the restaurant and had narcotics in his possession. The informer described Frank as a male Negro about 6 2 tall and dressed in brown with a 'quo vadis' hair cut. Cantrell stated that he had previously received information from this informer and as a result had made 14 arrests resulting in approximately 10 convictions.
After talking to the informer, Cantrell entered the restaurant and recognized the defendant out of the 12 people present. He approached the defendant and asked him if his name was Frank. When told that it was, Cantrell informed the defendant that he was under arrest for a narcotics violation. The defendant consented to a search of his person, whereupon he was frisked and told to step outside. Once outside Cantrell searched the defendant more thoroughly and found five packets of heroin in his shirt pocket.
The defendant's testimony conflicted with that given by Cantrell. Defendant remembered being in the restaurant at 10:30 P.M. on October 11, 1966, when he was approached by Cantrell, and stated that he was taken outside of the restaurant and searched against his wishes. He admitted wearing a 'quo vadis' hair cut at the time of his arrest. At the trial it was stipulated that the substance recovered from the defendant as a result of the search was heroin.
Defendant contends that his arrest and search were unlawful. As a basis for this contention, he alleges that the informer's reliability was not proved at trial; that there was no corroboration of the informant's reliability; that the officers lacked probable cause for his arrest and search; and that the officers had adequate time within which to obtain a warrant for the arrest and search.
An arrest by a police officer without a warrant is proper if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be arrested has committed a criminal offense. In People v. Durr, 28 Ill.2d 308, 192 N.E.2d 379, we held that such reasonable grounds may be supplied by information from an informer of established reliability. This informer had given information which was the basis of approximately 14 arrests and 10 convictions, and he also gave an accurate description of the defendant to Cantrell. Such evidence adequately establishes the informer's reliability (People v. Fleming,33 Ill.2d 431, 211 N.E.2d 677; People v. McCray, 33 Ill.2d 66, 210 N.E.2d 161), and shows that the defendant was lawfully arrested. (McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62.) We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Billings
...the motion and the burden of proving that the search and seizure were unlawful shall be on the defendant." See (People v. Wright (1969), 42 Ill.2d 457, 460, 248 N.E.2d 78.) A defendant who urges the suppression of the legally obtained evidence is required to make a prima facie showing that ......
-
People v. Campbell
...possession of marijuana at the time of the arrest. (People v. Robinson (1976), 62 Ill.2d 273, 276, 342 N.E.2d 356; People v. Wright (1969), 42 Ill.2d 457, 459, 248 N.E.2d 78; Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, par. 107-2(c).) If the use of the dogs trained in detecting marijuana was permissible her......
-
People v. Grice
... ... With respect to a motion to suppress physical evidence, the burden of establishing that the search and seizure were unlawful rests on the defendant. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, par. 114-12(b); People v ... [43 Ill.Dec. 214] Wright (1969), 42 Ill.2d 457, 460, 248 N.E.2d 78; People v. Blakes (1977), 55 Ill.App.3d 654, 657, 12 Ill.Dec. 958, 370 N.E.2d 869; People v. Berry (1977), 54 Ill.App.3d 647, 649, 12 Ill.Dec. 403, 370 N.E.2d 26.) Also, the reviewing court has the duty to affirm the result reached by the trial court on ... ...
-
People v. Hering
...(Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564.) The test is whether the search was reasonable. (People v. Wright, 42 Ill.2d 457, 248 N.E.2d 78), and the burden of showing that a search without a warrant was reasonable is on the prosecution. People v. Bussie, 41 Ill......