{ "id": 2556008, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Lee Harrison (Impleaded) and Sarah Crawford (Impleaded), Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Harrison", "decision_date": "1967-05-01", "docket_number": "Gen. Nos. 51,476 and 51,477. (Consolidated.)", "first_page": "90", "last_page": "97", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "83 Ill. App. 2d 90" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "186 NE2d 306", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 Ill2d 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5354210 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "227" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/26/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "217 NE2d 557", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 Ill App2d 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2591675 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/69/0312-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 NE2d 824", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill App2d 7", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5285752 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/56/0007-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 NE 844", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1931, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "343 Ill 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5254462 ], "year": 1931, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/343/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 NE2d 308", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 Ill App2d 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2568903 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/78/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 NE 195", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 Ill 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5188193 ], "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/326/0230-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 628, "char_count": 10627, "ocr_confidence": 0.634, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.993477357799498e-07, "percentile": 0.7420672016013289 }, "sha256": "b53729574318aa525cdf94cc22557aa9983c199b94792e26c36d6b7901ea40a1", "simhash": "1:283661dbfe4efd63", "word_count": 1783 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:35:59.641079+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Lee Harrison (Impleaded) and Sarah Crawford (Impleaded), Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MURPHY\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn a bench trial, James Lee Harrison and Sarah Crawford were found guilty of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug in manner and form as charged in the indictment. Harrison was sentenced to a term of from eight to ten years, and Sarah Crawford was sentenced to a term of from two to five years. Their separate appeals were consolidated here.\nDefendants\u2019 theory is that the evidence upon which they were convicted was unlawfully obtained by use of an illegal and void search warrant; that assuming validity of the search warrant, it did not authorize the seizure of much of the evidence seized during the search against them; and that evidence was unlawfully admitted and seriously prejudiced their defense of unknowledgeable possession of marijuana.\nOn the morning of November 1, 1965, James Mason appeared before one of the judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County and subscribed and swore to a complaint for a search warrant, in which it was alleged that on the evening of October 30, 1965, \u201cI James Mason purchased a three dollar bag of marijuana from a man called James, who lives at 1548 S. Trumbull on the first floor. While I was there I saw him handle about 15 packages of tinfoil, and about 25 brown paper bags which he sells for five dollars. The tinfoils and the paper bags have marijuana in them. My bag came out of the bunch that he had.\u201d On the basis of this complaint a search warrant was issued, authorizing the search of the person of \u201cJames (Doe)\u201d and the entire first floor of 1548 South Trumbull, \u201cand the following instrument, articles and things which have been used in the commission of, or which constitute evidence of, the offense of Possession of Marijuana be seized therefrom: Marijuana.\u201d\nThree police officers went to the Trumbull address, and a man, later identified as Harrison, came to the door and looked out at the officers through partially opened Venetian blinds. Officer John Petrocella announced they were police officers and they had a warrant to search the premises. Harrison, on hearing this, closed the blinds and apparently started toward the rear of the apartment. The officers forced the door and entered the apartment. Petrocella subdued Harrison in the kitchen and there showed the original of the search warrant to Harrison and read it aloud to him, after which the apartment was searched. Paper bags and tobacco tins were seized, the contents of which were tested at the Chicago Police Crime Laboratory and found to be \u201ccannabis setiva,\u201d commonly known as marijuana, from which the resin had not been extracted. It was stipulated by both defendants that a total of 812.9 grams of marijuana was taken from nine exhibits.\nWhen the officers entered the apartment, there were present three persons besides Harrison \u2014 an unidentified youth and two women, one of whom was the defendant, Sarah Crawford. Officer Jacoby testified that he saw Sarah Crawford \u201cstart to go out the door, at which time I stopped her. And she had a bag covered with plastic in her hand.\u201d He took the package away from her and told her to go back and sit down. He stated the package Sarah Crawford had in her hand was filled with some substance. She said that she was not a resident of the apartment, that she was just visiting and did not know the contents of the bag. The contents of the bag were included in the stipulation as being marijuana.\nInitially, we consider defendants\u2019 contention that the evidence introduced against them was discovered and seized upon an unlawful entry into the home of defendant Harrison, and that all of the evidence should have been suppressed on defendants\u2019 pretrial motion.\nIt is undisputed that at the time of the search, a carbon copy of the original search warrant was left with defendant Harrison, but it did not contain the judge\u2019s signature nor the date of issuance. Defendants cite sections of the Illinois Criminal Code which provide that \u201cAll warrants shall state the time and date of issuance . . . , shall be issued in duplicate .... If the warrant is executed the duplicate copy shall be left with any person from whom any instruments, articles or things are seized . . . .\u201d Ill Rev Stats, c 38, \u00a7\u00a7 108-4, 108-5, 108-6.\nDefendants assert that the foregoing provisions are mandatory. Defendants urge \u201cthat the above listed defects in the warrant in this case are not mere \u2018technical irregularities,\u2019 but a complete disobedience of the law\u2014 so complete that it may be said that no attempt was made to create a search warrant in legal contemplation. More than that, substantial rights of defendants here are affected, in that evidence, which they claim was obtained without lawful authority, has been admitted at a criminal prosecution against them \u2014 and they are unable to effectively combat the prosecution\u2019s claim that the warrant was properly issued and served within proper time because of the defective issuance and service of the warrant. The law enforcement officials have, by refusing to follow the law, deprived Defendants of an effective method provided them by the Legislature to establish the illegality of the search and seizure resulting in their convictions,\u201d and \u201cthe failure to leave a duplicate copy with Defendant Harrison cannot be deemed a \u2018technical irregularity\u2019 by any stretch of reason.\u201d\nThe State argues that the original of the search warrant was properly signed and dated by the issuing judge; that the original was shown to Harrison and read to him in the kitchen; and that, although an unsigned and undated copy was left with defendant, no prejudice was shown at the hearing of the motion to suppress, and \u201cno substantial right could have been violated.\u201d The State cites People v. DeGeovanni, 326 Ill 230, 157 NE 195 (1927), where it was held that the failure of the issuing officer to affix to his signature some indicia of his office was not fatal to the warrant. There the court said (p 237):\n\u201cThe omission was unimportant \u2014 not one of substance but merely of form. It has been held by several courts that such an omission, and similar omissions, do not render a warrant void, particularly where the warrant on its face discloses clearly the official character of the officer signing the warrant.\u201d\nAlso, People v. Perdew, 78 Ill App2d 331, 223 NE2d 308 (1966), where the court said (p 335) :\n\u201cWe feel that the absence of the judge\u2019s signature on a copy of the warrant could also be corrected by amendment at any time pending the proceedings so long as the original of the warrant was signed by the judge.\u201d\nNoted, also, is section 108-14 (c 38), which provides:\n\u201cNo warrant shall be quashed nor evidence suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the accused.\u201d\nWe are not persuaded that the failure of a copy of a search warrant to bear the signature of the issuing judge or the date is immaterial, but we hold that in the present factual situation it was a technical irregularity, which was not prejudicial to either of the defendants, nor did it affect their substantial rights. Therefore, the denial of the motion to suppress was proper.\nDefendants next contend that the officers executing the search warrant seized a number of things which were not described in the warrant and were not contraband per se. The items included two cigarette making machines, a tobacco pouch, a number of small brown envelopes, a package of cigarette paper, a piece of silver foil, and three packages marked \u201cZig-Zag Quality Superior.\u201d Defendants argue that the property not described in the search warrant may not be taken, and the search may not be exploratory and made solely to find evidence of guilt. People v. Sovetsky, 343 Ill 583, 175 NE 844 (1931).\nThe State argues that these materials were incidental to the possession of the narcotic drugs seized and were, therefore, properly seized themselves; that marijuana is most often used in cigarette form and the items listed \u201cwere to some extent relevant as being package materials, kept near at hand to the marijuana itself.\u201d In People v. Hall, 56 Ill App2d 7, 204 NE2d 824 (1965), the court was concerned with the seizure of dice suitable for gambling games. The court remarked (p 12):\n\u201c[N]ormal dice are not iniquitous per se nor with the legislative condemnation although they may become contraband if used with, a necessary part of or indubitably connected or associated with other gambling paraphernalia when seized.\u201d\nWe think this statement applies here. The instant items were found in the proximity of a large quantity of marijuana, and the court remarked, \u201cIt seems to be a common practice to carry some of these articles around in silver foil packages.\u201d We find no error in the seizure of the articles asserted not to be contraband nor in their admission in evidence at the trial of the defendants.\nFinally considered is the conviction of defendant Crawford. She was found in the apartment when the search warrant was executed. She was stopped as she attempted to leave the premises, and she was carrying a bag of narcotics. She denied knowledge of what the package contained.\nAn officer in the execution of a search warrant \u201cmay reasonably detain to search any person in the place at the time.\u201d (c 38, \u00a7 108-9.) Narcotics found on that person are properly received in evidence on a charge of unlawful possession of narcotic drugs. (People v. Pugh, 69 Ill App2d 312, 217 NE2d 557 (1966).) \u201cThe mere possession of a narcotic constitutes substantial evidence to sustain a finding that the possessor knew its nature.\u201d People v. Pigrenet, 26 Ill2d 224, 227, 186 NE2d 306 (1962).\nThe conduct of defendant Crawford prior to her detention and search was evidence from which an inference might fairly be drawn of her knowledge of the contents of the package. We find the record contained sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of defendant Crawford beyond a reasonable doubt.\nWe conclude both defendants were proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the possession of narcotic drugs upon properly admitted evidence. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nBURMAN and ADESKO, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MURPHY" } ], "attorneys": [ "Howard J. Abrams and Howard T. Savage, of Chicago, for appellants.", "John J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James S. Veldman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Lee Harrison (Impleaded) and Sarah Crawford (Impleaded), Defendants-Appellants.\nGen. Nos. 51,476 and 51,477. (Consolidated.)\nFirst District, First Division.\nMay 1, 1967.\nHoward J. Abrams and Howard T. Savage, of Chicago, for appellants.\nJohn J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James S. Veldman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0090-01", "first_page_order": 96, "last_page_order": 103 }