{ "id": 2554880, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. In the Matter of a Search Warrant Upon the Person of William L. Johnson and Premises Located at 9207 So. Harvard Avenue, Two Story \"One Family\" Brown Brick Unit, Chicago, Illinois, Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "People of State of Illinois v. in MatTer of a Search Warrant Upon Person of WilLiam L. Johnson", "decision_date": "1967-05-26", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 51,295", "first_page": "143", "last_page": "147", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "84 Ill. App. 2d 143" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "210 NE2d 161", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 Ill2d 66", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2883887 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "70-71" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/33/0066-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 S Ct 1056", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 6174244 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0300-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 US 257", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6163485 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/362/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "380 US 102", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1524630 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "108" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/380/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 NE2d 824", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill App2d 7", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5285752 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/56/0007-01" ] }, { "cite": "378 US 108", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6165107 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "114" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/378/0108-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 485, "char_count": 7893, "ocr_confidence": 0.597, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.714687233481314e-07, "percentile": 0.829625588209969 }, "sha256": "ef5b0fc0215e130cc8b6a71441e3584d0ae2ecac2f077875fc1168f22b25e841", "simhash": "1:6a843c5060e01beb", "word_count": 1303 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:36:35.235024+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. In the Matter of a Search Warrant Upon the Person of William L. Johnson and Premises Located at 9207 So. Harvard Avenue, Two Story \u201cOne Family\u201d Brown Brick Unit, Chicago, Illinois, Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE ENGLISH\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion to quash a search warrant, apparently on the ground that the affidavit therefor was insufficient. The State appeals, contending that the affidavit in support of the warrant contained facts sufficient to establish its veracity and reliability, and that there was probable cause to believe an offense had been or was being committed.\nThe affidavit was in the form of a complaint by Police Detective Sherwood Williams requesting a warrant to search the person of William Johnson and the premises at 9207 S. Harvard Avenue, Chicago, and to seize certain specified instruments, articles and things such as policy result tickets, policy bets and other policy records which had been used in the commission of or which constituted evidence of the offense of \u201cLottery Policy\u201d gambling. Complainant stated that his belief that the articles to be seized were on the person and premises designated was based upon the following:\nOn the 27th of December 1964, I had a conversation with a reliable informant, who has given me information in the past concerning Lottery Policy and I found this information true in every case, and this reliable informant told me that Charles Hoosier, William L. Johnson and Charles Belcher were involved in the operation of the Fire Chief-Holiday-Hoss Policy Wheel, and that they met daily between 2 p. m. to 2:30 p. m. and 10 p. m. to 11:30 p. m. at the home of Charles Belcher located at 9207 S. Harvard Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, where they \u201cturned in\u201d the bets that they picked up from their policy routes on the south side of the city of Chicago, Illinois, and waited for Hoosier to bring the Policy result tickets.\nFrom the 28th of December 1964 to the 13th of January 1965, I and other officers of my unit have maintained a constant surveillance of persons connected with this Policy Wheel daily, except Sundays, and followed them as they worked their policy routes, picking up bets and delivering policy result tickets.\nOn the 12th and 13th of January 1965, I followed William Johnson as he worked his route and at 10801 S. Bishop, 1st floor, and 11342 S. Ada St., first floor, I saw Johnson enter these locations, and when he emerged from them, he was sorting policy writings. At 11:45 on 13 January 1965, I saw William L. Johnson place a small package in the doorway of the building at 10801 S. Bishop, and leave this location. When I checked the package, I found them to be a quantity of Policy Result Tickets for the Fire Chief-Holiday-Hoss Policy Wheel. I recovered one of these result tickets for evidence.\nOn the 12th and 13th of January 1965 when I had William L. Johnson under constant surveillance while he was working his route, I followed him to 9207 S. Harvard St., Chicago, Illinois on both dates. At this location Johnson would take the Policy bets accumulated over his route and carry them into this location.\nA search warrant was issued by a Magistrate on January 14,1965, on the basis of this affidavit.\nAt the hearing on defendant\u2019s motion to quash the warrant, he argued that the affidavit was lacking in facts to show the reliability of the informant and how he had obtained his information. In granting defendant\u2019s motion, the court relied on Aguilar v. Texas, 378 US 108, which we believe was incorrectly applied to this case, since in Aguilar the complaint contained no affirmative allegation that the affiant spoke with any personal knowledge, did not indicate any reasonable corroborative source for the complainant\u2019s belief in the information he had received, and did not therefore furnish adequate support for a conclusion as to the informant\u2019s reliability.\nIn reviewing and approving the issuance of a search warrant in People v. Hall, 56 Ill App2d 7, 204 NE2d 824, this court interpreted and distinguished Aguilar at pages 10-11:\nHere the officer stated the circumstances from which he concluded that his informant was \u201ccredible\u201d or his information \u201creliable.\u201d In Aguilar, the warrant issued on the magistrate\u2019s acceptance of the informant\u2019s \u201csuspicion, belief, or mere conclusion\u201d without more. Here the chain of events suggesting the probable cause is set forth for the magistrate\u2019s judicial determination. In Aguilar, there were none \u2014 what Aguilar lacked is present here. It seems clear to us that the circumstances related in the affidavit would warrant a man of reasonable caution in believing that an offense had been committed and the defendant was directly connected with it.\nIn the instant case, the warrant was based upon hearsay obtained from an informant alleged to be reliable on the basis of previous experiences; upon corroborative personal observation of defendant and the premises to be searched by the complaining officer; and also upon the officer\u2019s discovery of tangible evidence in the form of policy slips. Similar circumstances were presented to the court in United States v. Ventresca, 380 US 102, 108, where the warrant was upheld and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was reversed:\nThus hearsay may be the basis for issuance of the warrant \u201cso long as there [is] a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay.\u201d Jones v. United States [362 US 257, 272], And, in Aguilar we recognized that \u201can affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant,\u201d so long as the magistrate is \u201cinformed of some of the underlying circumstances\u201d supporting the affiant\u2019s conclusions and his belief that any informant involved \u201cwhose identity need not be disclosed . . . was \u2018credible\u2019 or his information \u2018reliable.\u2019 \u201d Aguilar v. Texas, supra, at 114.\nAnd further at page 109:\nRecital of some of the underlying circumstances in the affidavit is essential if the magistrate is to perform his detached function and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police. However, where these circumstances are detailed, where reason for crediting the source of the information is given, and when a magistrate has found probable cause, the courts should not invalidate the warrant by interpreting the affidavit in a hypertechnical, rather than a commonsense, manner. Although in a particular case it may not be easy to determine when an affidavit demonstrates the existence of probable cause, the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants. Jones v. United States, supra, at 270.\nSee also McCray v. Illinois, 87 S Ct 1056.\nThus, the guiding principle in determining probable cause is common sense. With that in mind, it might almost be said of the instant case that even had the informant\u2019s reliability not been attested to by past performance within the officer\u2019s knowledge, the detailed recitation of the police surveillance and the finding of policy slips would in themselves have justified a reasonable belief in probable cause for the issuance of a warrant to search. People v. McCray, 33 Ill2d 66, 70-71, 210 NE2d 161, and cases cited therein.\nThe defendant did not sufficiently discharge his burden of proof on the motion to quash the search warrant. Ill Rev Stats 1963, c 38, \u00a7 114-12. The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nDRUCKER and McCORMICK, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE ENGLISH" } ], "attorneys": [ "John J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Sheldon Schapiro, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellant.", "No appearance made for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. In the Matter of a Search Warrant Upon the Person of William L. Johnson and Premises Located at 9207 So. Harvard Avenue, Two Story \u201cOne Family\u201d Brown Brick Unit, Chicago, Illinois, Appellee.\nGen. No. 51,295.\nFirst District, Fourth Division.\nMay 26, 1967.\nJohn J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Sheldon Schapiro, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellant.\nNo appearance made for appellee." }, "file_name": "0143-01", "first_page_order": 149, "last_page_order": 153 }