{ "id": 2887431, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. James Tate, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Tate", "decision_date": "1970-01-28", "docket_number": "No. 42181", "first_page": "432", "last_page": "435", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "44 Ill. 2d 432" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "60 Ill. App.2d 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2604360, 2604963 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/60/0477-01", "/ill-app-2d/60/0477-02" ] }, { "cite": "357 U.S. 480", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6163831 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "486" }, { "page": "1509" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/357/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Ill.2d 189", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2861241 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/38/0189-01" ] }, { "cite": "380 U.S. 102", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1524630 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "105-106" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/380/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 A.L.R. 775", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 U.S. 452", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1175385 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "464" }, { "page": "882" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/285/0452-01" ] }, { "cite": "378 U.S. 108", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6165107 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "726" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/378/0108-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 422, "char_count": 5317, "ocr_confidence": 0.792, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0257911837061976e-07, "percentile": 0.5466644966559826 }, "sha256": "a132c8bcb99a28b6a3ffd579da6e311b9de431642549c0eb430d39cf84177135", "simhash": "1:dcbbaad3203fd757", "word_count": 876 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:12.938767+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. James Tate, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Culbertson\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nBased principally upon evidence taken from his person under authority of a search warrant, defendant, James Tate, was charged, tried and found guilty in the circuit court of Cook County of knowingly possessing policy tickets in violation of the gambling article of our Criminal Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 28 \u2014 1(a)(8).) He has appealed, contending that the denial of a motion to quash the warrant and to suppress the evidence resulted in an infringement upon his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The single issue presented is the sufficiency of the complaint for the warrant to establish probable cause for its issuance. (See: U.S. Const., amend. IV; Const. of Ill., art. II, sec. 6.) And in approaching the problem, we are mindful of the injunction of the court in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 110 \u2014 111, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723, 726, 84 S. Ct. 1509, when it said: \u201cAn evaluation of the constitutionality of a search warrant should begin with the rule that \u2018the informed and deliberate determinations of magistrates empowered to issue warrants * * * are to be preferred over the hurried action of officers * * * who may happen to make arrests.\u2019 United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452, 464, 76 L. Ed. 877, 882, 52 S. Ct. 420, 82 A.L.R. 775. The reasons for this rule go to the foundations of the Fourth Amendment.\u201d See also: United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 105-106, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684, 85 S. Ct. 741; People v. McGrain, 38 Ill.2d 189, 193.\nThe complaint here, sworn to by police officer Brian Lundin, stated the following:\n\u201c* * * I am a Chicago Police Officer assigned to the Gambling Unit, VCD. On 17 June 68 while in the vicinity of 4600 So. Prairie Ave. I observed James Tate a known policy runner driving his automobile. I immediately initiated a surveillance and I observed Mr. Tate make several stops in the surrounding vicinity. Mr. Tate would enter various apartment buildings, remain inside a few minutes and depart. I counted Mr. Tate make ten (10) of these stops.\n\u201cOn 18 June 68 this investigation was repeated and hereto-fore mentioned activities were repeated.\n\u201cOn 19 June 68 at 2:00 PM I waited at 4601 So. Prairie Ave. After Mr. Tate entered the premises, deposited a quantity of policy result tickets in the hallway and departed I was able to retrieve one (1) of these policy result tickets. Same was stamped Windy City-Big Town & Subway. I marked this ticket for identification and a xerox copy is made part of this complaint. Based on the above investigation and observation, I believe that Mr. Tate is engaging in illegal policy gambling operations and is in possession of policy gambling paraphernalia.\u201d\nOn the basis of such complaint a warrant issued which commanded the search of defendant\u2019s person and automobile and the seizure of policy result tickets, policy bet writings, policy bet money and other related paraphernalia used in gambling by policy. Defendant, tacitly conceding that the complaint sufficiently describes the crime involved, the place and/or person to be searched and the things to be seized, (see: Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 108 \u2014 3,) narrowly attacks it on the ground that its allegations of probable cause are merely the unsupported conclusions of the complainant.\n\u201cProbable cause\u201d encompasses a belief that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it, and, as stated in Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 486, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1503, 1509, 78 S. Ct. 1245: \u201cThe purpose of the complaint, then, is to enable the appropriate magistrate, here a Commissioner, to determine whether the \u2018probable cause\u2019 required to support a warrant exists. The Commissioner [magistrate] must judge for himself the persuasiveness of the facts relied on by a complaining officer to show probable cause.\u201d Accordingly, it may be agreed that probable cause cannot be established by a complaint for a search warrant which is purely conclusory in stating the affiant\u2019s belief that probable cause exists, without detailing any of the underlying circumstances upon which that belief is based. (United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684, 85 S. Ct. 741; People v. Close, 60 Ill. App.2d 477.) Or, to put it another way, the examining magistrate cannot accept without question the unsupported conclusion of the complainant that defendant has committed, or is committing, a crime.\nThe complaint here, however, is not subject to such vice, but contains persuasive supporting or underlying allegations of fact which permitted the magistrate to determine for himself that probable cause existed.\nThe trial court did not err in denying the motion to quash and suppress, and, in the absence of any further claims of error, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Culbertson" } ], "attorneys": [ "Geter & Geter, of Chicago, (Howard D. Geter, Sr. and Howard D. Getter, Jr., of counsel,) for appellant.", "William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (James B. Zagel, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmer C. Kissane and John McClory, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 42181.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. James Tate, Appellant.\nOpinion filed January 28, 1970.\nGeter & Geter, of Chicago, (Howard D. Geter, Sr. and Howard D. Getter, Jr., of counsel,) for appellant.\nWilliam J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (James B. Zagel, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmer C. Kissane and John McClory, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "0432-01", "first_page_order": 472, "last_page_order": 475 }