{
  "id": 5395246,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Aaron Jordain et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Jordain",
  "decision_date": "1973-02-06",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 56239-56246 cons.",
  "first_page": "46",
  "last_page": "48",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 Ill. App. 3d 46"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "245 N.E.2d 134",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 Ill.App.2d 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1598855
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/105/0068-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.E.2d 879",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill.2d 265",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2859617
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/38/0265-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.E.2d 225",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ill.2d 505",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5377746
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/36/0505-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 273,
    "char_count": 4369,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.75,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.052393210097117e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42524564173432505
    },
    "sha256": "bbf2a3f9d08d435b3d9098845c1c6dad0f2742e28f7b94a627744a4c61d747d8",
    "simhash": "1:d862a539e7489d96",
    "word_count": 700
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:00.166365+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Aaron Jordain et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM:\nThis is an interlocutory appeal by plaintiff, People of the State of Illinois, from an order entered by the Circuit Court of Cook County quashing a search warrant and suppressing evidence. The search warrant was originally issued to search certain premises for narcotics and narcotics paraphernalia which have been used in or constitute the offense of possession of narcotics. The trial court sustained the defendants\u2019 motion to quash for the reason that the reliability of the informer had not been established since his prior information had not as yet led to any convictions.\nThe complaint for the search warrant was made by Chicago police officer Earl Armstead before a judge of the circuit court of Cook County. The complainant stated that he had probable cause to believe that narcotics and narcotics paraphernalia could be located at 264 North Kedzie Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, based upon the following facts:\nAn informer, who had given information in the past which led to three raids and five arrests, all of which cases are pending, with narcotics being found in each case, gave information that narcotics were being sold from the record shop at 264 North Kedzie Avenue. The informer-stated that one hour before their meeting he purchased ten \u201cred devils\u201d from \u201cB.B.\u201d in the shop and had seen more. The informer stated that he had taken two of the capsules and they were narcotics. Further, the officer observed the shop for one-half hour and observed several known narcotics addicts enter the shop, have a brief conversation with the clerk, walk to the rear of the shop and then exit with no apparent purchase.\nWe are of the opinion that the State is correct in its position that probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant was established. The essence of the trial court\u2019s ruling was that, unless the informer\u2019s information has led to at least one conviction, probable cause can never be established. In People v. Williams, 36 Ill.2d 505, 224 N.E.2d 225, the affidavit set out the observations of two informers and stated that they had furnished reliable information in the past. The informers were corroborated by the police officer\u2019s observation of known gamblers entering the premises in question. The court held this provided a sufficient basis to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. See also People v. Chatman, 38 Ill.2d 265, 230 N.E.2d 879.\nIn People v. Kopple, 105 Ill.App.2d 68, 245 N.E.2d 134, the court reversed a trial court\u2019s order quashing a search warrant. There the affidavit stated information was supplied by an informer who in the past had proven reliable. This information was corroborated by the informer placing a bet in the police officer\u2019s presence and the officer observing the defendants enter the premises in question. The court held that probable cause was shown, saying, \u201creliability of informers can be established in various ways and is not restricted to the establishment of the previous reliability of an informer\u2019s information, as measured by previous arrests and convictions or the like, as suggested by the trial court in the instant case.\u201d\nIn the case at bar, tire affidavit set forth that the informer had given information on three prior occasions and narcotics were recovered in each case. This established that the informer had in the past furnished reliable information. The complainant\u2019s personal observation of known narcotics addcits entering the premises, speaking with a clerk, going to the rear of the store and then exiting with no apparent purchase, further corroborated the informer\u2019s information. The informer\u2019s information, together with the police officer\u2019s observation, was sufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant within the applicable constitutional dictates.\nThe order of the trial court in quashing the search warrant is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to the trial court to deny the defendant\u2019s motion to quash the search warrant.\nReversed and remanded with directions.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Elmer C. Kissane and James S. Veldman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Aaron Jordain et al., Defendants-Appellees.\n(Nos. 56239-56246 cons.;\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nFebruary 6, 1973.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Elmer C. Kissane and James S. Veldman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0046-01",
  "first_page_order": 70,
  "last_page_order": 72
}