{ "id": 2840255, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Frank Brooks, Plaintiff in Error", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Brooks", "decision_date": "1965-01-21", "docket_number": "No. 38174", "first_page": "81", "last_page": "84", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "32 Ill. 2d 81" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "1 Ill.2d 525", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5315299 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/1/0525-01" ] }, { "cite": "267 F.2d 106", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1974664 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/267/0106-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Ill.2d 572", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2802208 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/24/0572-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ill.2d 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5356906 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/26/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 Ill.2d 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2744599 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/19/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 Ill.2d 617", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2771198 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/14/0617-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 Ill.2d 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2761126 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/16/0569-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill.2d 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5360669 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/28/0308-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 Ill.2d 257", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2833958 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/31/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "267 U.S. 132", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6137701 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/267/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "358 U.S. 307", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3650729 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/358/0307-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 412, "char_count": 5532, "ocr_confidence": 0.804, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.343491648654731e-08, "percentile": 0.4808811247296657 }, "sha256": "ac6fc58c3634222079f59f79ea517d4b0541c63d5bc78bfb26d6dd505659a7ac", "simhash": "1:87036ecac8062918", "word_count": 922 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:33:39.109813+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Frank Brooks, Plaintiff in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Hershey\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Frank Brooks, was indicted in the criminal court of Cook County for unlawful possession of a narcotic drug. His pretrial motion to suppress evidence was denied, and in a bench trial he was found guilty and sentenced to a term of 5 to 10 years in the penitentiary. On this writ of error he contends that his conviction was based upon evidence obtained in the course of an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the State and Federal constitutions. 111. Const, art. II, sec. 6.\nThe People\u2019s case is founded upon the testimony of two Chicago police officers. Officer Robert Frawley testified that at about 9:10 A.M. on October 16, 1962 he received a phone call from an informer whom he had talked to on numerous previous occasions. The informer stated that sometime later that morning a man called Frank would be selling narcotics near the McDonald\u2019s hamburger stand located at the corner of 35th and Wabash in Chicago. The caller further indicated that Frank was approximately 34 years old, about 5 J2 feet tall, \u201cdark skinned\u201d, sometimes wore a tan raincoat, and would probably come from the direction of a nearby elevated station.\nUpon receiving this information, officer Frawley and his companion, officer Melvin Alexander, drove to 35th and Wabash where they arrived at about 10:00 A.M. Officer Frawley remained in a car parked immediately west of the hamburger stand while officer Alexander, dressed in civilian clothes, stood beside the hamburger shop drinking coffee and reading a newspaper. At about 10 :io A.M. both officers observed the defendant approach from the direction of the C.T.A. elevated station. He wore a cap and tan raincoat and otherwise fit the general description- given by the informer. After reaching McDonald\u2019s, the defendant purchased a cup of coffee and engaged in conversation with an unidentified man who was standing about 5 feet from officer Alexander. Alexander testified that the unidentified man said to the defendant \u201cI have the money, do you have the stuff?\u201d and then removed some money from his pocket whereupon the defendant put his hand into his pocket.\nAt this moment officers Frawley and Alexander started to \u201cmove in\u201d on the pair. The unidentified man fled from the scene with officer Frawley in unsuccessful pursuit while officer Alexander arrested the defendant. Although there is some dispute as\" to the chronology of the events occurring at the scene of the arrest, the evidence supports the conclusion that the stranger\u2019s flight occurred just prior to the defendant\u2019s arrest. A search of the defendant\u2019s clothing disclosed the presence of a \u201cPall Mall cigarette package containing three tin foil packages of white powder\u201d. It was stipulated at the trial that the powder was cocaine hydrochloride, a narcotic drug.\nTestifying in his own behalf at the hearing on the motion to suppress, the defendant denied that the unidentified man had uttered the words testified to by.officer Alexander.\nA police officer may make an arrest without a warrant if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a crime. (Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 3 L. ed. 2d 327; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 69 L. ed. 543; People v. Beattie, 31 Ill.2d 257; People v. Durr, 28 Ill.2d 308; People v. Jones, 16 Ill.2d 569; People v. La Bostrie, 14 Ill.2d 617). The defendant concedes that if his arrest was lawful the search incident thereto was likewise lawful. (People v. Watkins, 19 Ill.2d 11). He contends, however, that the police officers did not have reasonable cause to arrest him without a warrant and that the subsequent search o\u00ed his person without a search warrant was therefore illegal and the evidence obtained thereby improperly admitted at his trial.\nMore particularly, the defendant argues that there was no testimony as to the reliability of the informer, and that on the authority of People v. Pitts, 26 Ill.2d 395, and People v. Parren, 24 Ill.2d 572, the officers were not justified in relying on the informer\u2019s tip. But unlike the Pitts and Parren cases, this is not a case in which the arrest was based solely upon an unknown informer\u2019s tip. Although the record contains no affirmative testimony as to the past reliability of the informer, we think it clear that the events occurring prior to the defendant\u2019s arrest served to confirm the accuracy of the tip. (See United States v. Gray, (7th cir.) 267 F.2d 106; People v. Tillman, 1 Ill.2d 525.) In our opinion the collective facts of the informer\u2019s tip, the appearance and demeanor of the defendant, and the words, actions and flight of the stranger were sufficient to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the defendant was in the commission of a criminal offense. The arrest was lawful, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence discovered in the course of the search incident thereto.\nThe judgment of the criminal court of Cook County is affiimed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Hershey" } ], "attorneys": [ "Wilfred F. Rice, Jr., of Chicago, appointed by the court, for plaintiff in error.", "William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach and George W. Kenney, Assistant Attorneys General, and Elmer C. Kissane and William J. Nellis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 38174.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Frank Brooks, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed January 21, 1965.\nWilfred F. Rice, Jr., of Chicago, appointed by the court, for plaintiff in error.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach and George W. Kenney, Assistant Attorneys General, and Elmer C. Kissane and William J. Nellis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "0081-01", "first_page_order": 81, "last_page_order": 84 }