{ "id": 5378640, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Louis Truelock, Plaintiff in Error", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Truelock", "decision_date": "1966-09-23", "docket_number": "No. 38577", "first_page": "189", "last_page": "192", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "35 Ill. 2d 189" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "32 Ill.2d 253", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2838755 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "256" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/32/0253-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 Ill.2d 164", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5329567 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/18/0164-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 Ill.2d 345", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2737275 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/20/0345-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill.2d 355", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5361754 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "358" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/28/0355-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ill.2d 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2886173 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/33/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 Ill.2d 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2832192 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/31/0240-01" ] }, { "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": "28 Ill.2d 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5360669 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/28/0308-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 Ill.2d 361", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2737324 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/20/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 Ill.2d 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2831162 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/31/0042-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 387, "char_count": 6418, "ocr_confidence": 0.793, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.665321909186322e-07, "percentile": 0.9277249368592532 }, "sha256": "e51afbc61125c3a291fd9f8d0e779d0b423475e406d834287dd45f221ceb7e14", "simhash": "1:2534c0bfc04839b5", "word_count": 1080 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:37:37.175519+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. Louis Truelock, Plaintiff in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Hershey\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Louis Truelock, was found guilty of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug by a jury in the circuit court of Cook County and was sentenced to a term of eight to ten years in the penitentiary. On this writ of error he urges reversal of his conviction on the grounds (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evidence obtained at the time of his arrest without a search or arrest warrant, and (2) that the trial court erred in giving a certain instruction to the jury.\nOn the evening of November 22, 1962, at about 10:30 P.M., Chicago police officer Arthur Tyrell met an informer named Jerry Burns, who informed the officer of the existence of narcotics in an apartment at 1039 North La Salle Street, in Chicago. The informer was then taken to a police station where he was questioned, searched and given some marked money. The informer and officer Tyrell then proceeded to the apartment building at 1039 North La Salle Street and entered the building. The informer knocked on a door of one of the apartments in the building and was admitted. A short time later he came out and told the officer, \u201cI made the buy. I have the \u2018IT, here it is.\u201d He then handed two tinfoil packages to officer Tyrell, stating that he had acquired them from \u201cTruelock\u201d who was \u201csitting at the kitchen table\u201d.\nThe informer then knocked again at the apartment door, announced his name, and was again given permission to enter the apartment. The informer entered but was accompanied this time by police officers who, after stepping through the doorway, observed the defendant sitting at a kitchen table mixing a white powder. The defendant made several incriminating remarks admitting that he knew of the presence of heroin and marked money in the apartment. The defendant also told the police officer that he had narcotics in his watch pocket, and upon searching the defendant, the officers recovered a tinfoil package from defendant\u2019s watch pocket. The package contained heroin.\nDefendant\u2019s initial contention is that his arrest without a warrant was unlawful and that the search incident thereto without a search warrant was therefore illegal and unconstitutional. It is well settled that a police officer may make an arrest without a warrant if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested is committing or has committed a criminal offense. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 38, par. 107 \u2014 2; People v. Jones, 31 Ill.2d 42; People v. Hightower, 20 Ill.2d 361.) An informer\u2019s tip may provide such reasonable grounds for an arrest without a warrant if the officer has reasonable grounds for placing reliance on the tip. (People v. Durr, 28 Ill.2d 308; People v. Beattie, 31 Ill.2d 257; People v. Jones, 31 Ill.2d 240; People v. Fleming, 33 Ill.2d 431.) Evidence as to the previous reliability of the informer of course is significant in determining whether reliance on the tip was justified in a particular case. In the case before us, officer Tyrell testified that he had known the informer for about a year and a half and \u201chad used him before 4 or 5 times\u201d. The officer further testified that he had found the informer\u2019s previous information to be reliable and \u201cexcellent\u201d. He also named a particular case in which a conviction had been obtained following an arrest based on the informer\u2019s tip. Officer Tyrell then set up a carefully controlled purchase at the address where the informer said narcotics were located, and prior to entering the defendant\u2019s apartment, officer Tyrell had every reason to believe that the informer\u2019s present tip was also reliable. In our opinion, these facts were sufficient to justify officer Tyrell\u2019s reliance on the informer\u2019s tip and to provide reasonable grounds for the defendant\u2019s arrest in this case.\nThe defendant was indicted for knowingly possessing a narcotic drug otherwise than as authorized by the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act of the State of Illinois. (111. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 38, par. 22 \u2014 3.) Although section 3 of the act does not contain the word \u201cknowingly\u201d, we have previously held that \u201cTo support a conviction of the crime of unlawful possession of narcotic drugs the People must prove not only that the accused had knowledge of the presence of the narcotics, but also that they were in his immediate possession and control.\u201d People v. Galloway, 28 Ill.2d 355, 358; People v. Smith, 20 Ill.2d 345; People v. Matthews, 18 Ill.2d 164.\nThe court gave the following instruction to the jury over the defendant\u2019s objection: \u201cThe court instructs the jury in the language of the statute that it is unlawful for any person to possess or have under his control any narcotic drug except as authorized in the statute.\u201d The defendant argues that the instruction and form of verdict should have contained the word \u201cknowingly\u201d since knowledge is an essential element of the crime of unlawful possession of narcotic drugs.\nWe agree that the trial court erred in giving the objected to instruction and form of jury verdict in this case. Without proof that a defendant has knowingly possessed a narcotic drug, a defendant cannot be convicted of the crime of unlawful possession of narcotic drugs, and the jury in this case should have been so instructed. However, we do not think that the error in this case requires reversal. \u201cEven though error may have been committed in giving or refusing instructions it will not always justify reversal when the evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt is so clear and convincing that the jury could not reasonably have found him not guilty.\u201d (People v. Ward, 32 Ill.2d 253, 256.) In the present case, the evidence of the defendant\u2019s knowledge of the presence of narcotics is clear and convincing. We do not think that a jury could reasonably have found the defendant not guilty in this case, and therefore, reversal is not justified.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\n, Judgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Hershey" } ], "attorneys": [ "Bernard B. Nathan, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.", "William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmer C. Kissane and E. James Gildea, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 38577.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Louis Truelock, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed September 23, 1966.\nBernard B. Nathan, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmer C. Kissane and E. James Gildea, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "0189-01", "first_page_order": 191, "last_page_order": 194 }