{ "id": 5439818, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD D. SHAFFER et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Shaffer", "decision_date": "1982-12-14", "docket_number": "No. 82-53", "first_page": "1054", "last_page": "1059", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "111 Ill. App. 3d 1054" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "525 F.2d 57", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1094821 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "59" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/525/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 Ill. 2d 525", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5450175 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "541" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/71/0525-01" ] }, { "cite": "415 U.S. 164", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6172884 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "171" }, { "page": "249-50" }, { "page": "993" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/415/0164-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 L. Ed. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "440" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "333 U.S. 10", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6156920 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "13" }, { "page": "368-69" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/333/0010-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 U.S. 543", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1767611 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1948, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "548" }, { "page": "802" }, { "page": "1791" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/391/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "412 U.S. 218", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6172008 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "248-49" }, { "page": "875" }, { "page": "2058-59" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/412/0218-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 L. Ed. 153", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "157" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 U.S. 451", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6159793 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "453" }, { "page": "192" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/335/0451-01" ] }, { "cite": "445 U.S. 573", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1777746 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1948, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "590" }, { "page": "653" }, { "page": "1381-82" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/445/0573-01" ] }, { "cite": "417 N.E.2d 608", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "611" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 Ill. 2d 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3045271 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "69-70" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/84/0064-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 612, "char_count": 12112, "ocr_confidence": 0.76, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2327943556035736e-07, "percentile": 0.6060627472875831 }, "sha256": "d8b9987fa510b514d4a061fc8ff559cc0f879a0fc85a4bf854262f78473e4730", "simhash": "1:afd92c8a7bd7ab3c", "word_count": 2078 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:05.990742+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. RICHARD D. SHAFFER et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE JONES\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn this appeal brought by the State we consider the correctness of the trial court\u2019s ruling in granting the motion of defendants, Richard Shaffer and Teresa Shaffer, to suppress evidence seized from their residence.\nAt the hearing on defendant\u2019s motion to suppress, four witnesses testified: defendant Richard Shaffer and the three policemen involved in the search of defendants\u2019 residence. Officer Simon of the Collinsville Police Department testified that on August 13, 1981, at about 4 p.m. he noticed three large plants identified,as marijuana growing in the backyard of defendants\u2019 residence. At that time no one was at home. Officer Simon checked the residence periodically during the remainder of the afternoon to see whether the resident had returned home. Having determined sometime after 6 p.m. that the resident had returned, Officer Simon, together with Sergeant Trucano and Officer Knapp, went to defendants\u2019 residence at about 6:20 p.m. Officer Knapp watched the rear of the house, Officer Simon went to the backyard of the residence to be sure the marijuana plants were still in the garden and then went to the front door of the residence, and Sergeant Trucano went directly to the front door. When Officer Simon \u201cwalked up on the porch,\u201d he said, \u201cthe Sergeant was already inside.\u201d\nDefendant Richard Shaffer, the first witness to testify, stated that he first observed two police officers in the house when he came into the \u201cfront room\u201d of the rented residence. He said,\n\u201cI was in the kitchen with my wife fixing supper, and my younger brother came in the house, and he came in a hurry saying that the police officers was [sic] coming in the house. And I walked in the front room and they was [sic] in the front room already.\u201d\nHe said that there were four other persons in the \u201cfront room,\u201d that is, the living room, at the time: Scott Shaffer, who was defendant Richard Shaffer\u2019s younger brother but did not live at defendants\u2019 residence, two of Scott\u2019s friends, and defendant\u2019s brother-in-law. Defendant testified that Scott \u201ccame as the police officers arrived to [sic] the house, he came into the house and they followed him in.\u201d Scott\u2019s friends had, he said, arrived earlier. Defendant testified that his brother and brother-in-law were \u201cfrequent visitors\u201d to his house and that he had never prevented his brother from inviting friends into defendants\u2019 home. Defendant Richard Shaffer had not consented to the officers\u2019 entry into the residence.\nSergeant Trucano testified that he had knocked on the front door of the residence and that defendant Richard Shaffer\u2019s younger brother had come to the door and had told him he could come in. The front door leads into the living room of the house. The witness said that defendant Richard Shaffer was in the living room, that his wife was in the kitchen cooking, that she came into the living room and that he explained the \u201ccircumstances\u201d to defendant Richard Shaffer. This colloquy between the witness and defendants\u2019 attorney followed:\n\u201cQ. [Defendants\u2019 attorney] Okay. And then did you conduct a search?\nA. I asked him if I could look around.\nQ. And what did he say?\nA. He agreed, said yes.\nQ. And the search you conducted was inside the house, was it not?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Okay. And what did you find?\nA. I didn\u2019t find anything. Officer Knapp [who testified that he had come in the house through the back door after having been called by Sergeant Trucano] found some cannabis alongside of the chair.\nQ. Okay. And you asked Mr. Rick Shaffer if you could look around and what exactly did he reply to you?\nA. Best of my knowledge he said go ahead.\nQ. Are you positive about that or are you speculating?\nA. I\u2019m only saying what I can remember. That\u2019s what I\u2014 what I think happened.\nQ. Okay. And you didn\u2019t have a search warrant at that time?\nA. No, I didn\u2019t.\u201d\nThe witness testified subsequently on cross-examination by the State that defendant\u2019s younger brother had come to the door and opened it, that when the witness entered the house defendant Richard Shaffer walked into the living room, that no one had asked him if he had a warrant and that he had explained to defendant Richard Shaffer \u201cthat he had cannabis growing in the garden portion of his yard at the rear.\u201d The witness then testified as follows in response to further questions propounded by the State:\n\u201cQ. [Assistant State\u2019s Attorney] And what did he say?\nA. He denied it.\nQ. He said\u2014\nA. Denied that he had anything to do with it.\nQ. All right. Do you recall exactly what he said?\nA. No, sir.\nQ. All right. And then is that when you asked him if you could look around?\nA. Yes.\nQ. And the best of your recollection, his exact words were go ahead?\nA. Yes.\u201d\nOn examination by the court Sergeant Trucano stated that when he entered the residence he did not know who lived there but that he recognized defendant Richard Shaffer when defendant began questioning the sergeant as to why he was there. The witness said he had known \u201call the Shaffer boys since they were youngsters.\u201d The witness was not able to recall Scott Shaffer\u2019s first name but did recall that he worked as a cook at McDonald\u2019s.\nThe trial court ordered the evidence seized from the interior of the house suppressed but denied defendants\u2019 motion to suppress the cannabis plants taken from the backyard of defendants\u2019 residence. In the order, entered December 29,1981, the trial court found in part:\n\u201c3) That there was no consent by the owner or anyone with actual authority to enter the house. It was stated by the police officer at the hearing that he knew the person that let him in and had reason to believe that he did not, in fact, live there. There was further an indication in the testimony that the policeman\u2019s entry was right behind the entry of the person who allegedly gave authority [sic],\n4) That if the entry was without consent, it is not cured by any purported consent to search given by the owner once the police have improperly entered onto the premises.\u201d\nAt a hearing held on January 19, 1982, the trial court granted defendants\u2019 motion in limine concerning evidence obtained pursuant to the search of the residence. On January 27, 1982, the State filed a notice of appeal with respect to both orders. Thus, the State appeals not only the order granting defendants\u2019 motion to suppress evidence seized from their residence but also the order granting defendants\u2019 motion in limine, likewise concerning evidence obtained pursuant to the search of the residence. Defendants have raised no question as to our jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal by the State with respect to an order granting a motion in limine. However, in view of the disposition we make in this case as to the order granting the motion to suppress, we need not consider either the order granting the motion in limine or our jurisdiction to review it.\nContrary to the State\u2019s position, defendants contend that Scott Shaffer, as a \u201cmere visitor,\u201d lacked authority to give \u201cvalid consent to enter the house to the police.\u201d Defendants have not at any time denied that Scott Shaffer opened the door of their residence and allowed Sergeant Trucano to enter. Nor have they claimed at any time that Scott Shaffer\u2019s consent to entry by the police was in any way involuntary. The trial court\u2019s ruling as to the cannabis found outside the residence is not disputed here.\nIn People v. Bean (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 64, 69-70, 417 N.E.2d 608, 611, the supreme court recently discussed third-party consents to warrant-less entries:\n\u201cWe agree that generally an arrest warrant is the desired means by which an individual\u2019s right to privacy is protected. (Payton v. New York (1980), 445 U.S. 573, 590, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639, 653, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 1381-82; McDonald v. United States (1948), 335 U.S. 451, 453, 93 L. Ed. 153, 157, 69 S. Ct. 191, 192.) However, when voluntary consent is given to enter one\u2019s residence and an arrest is effected based on probable cause, the suspect\u2019s rights under the fourth amendment are not violated, even in the absence of exigent circumstances. The standard for valid consent applied by the Supreme Court in a variety of circumstances is whether that consent is voluntarily given. (Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), 412 U.S. 218, 248-49, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854, 875, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2058-59; Bumper v. North Carolina (1968), 391 U.S. 543, 548, 20 L. Ed. 2d 797, 802, 88 S. Ct. 1788, 1791. See Johnson v. United States (1948), 333 U.S. 10, 13, 92 L. Ed. 436, 440, 68 S. Ct. 367, 368-69.) When a warrantless entry is justified by voluntary consent, that consent need not be given by defendant; it may be obtained from a third party who has control over the premises. United States v. Matlock (1974), 415 U.S. 164, 171, 39 L. Ed. 2d 242, 249-50, 94 S. Ct. 988, 993; People v. Heflin (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 525, 541.\u201d\nIn United States v. Turbyfill (8th Cir. 1975), 525 F.2d 57, the defendant was the sole tenant of a residence. When police officers went to the residence to question him about a counterfeiting operation, a person who had been staying in the house for several weeks and had \u201cthe run of the house\u201d, allowed police to enter defendant\u2019s residence, whereupon the officers found marijuana in plain view in a shoe box on a table. The court ruled that the officers had the right to be in the position from which they saw the marijuana, describing the person who had admitted the officers as \u201can occupant of indefinite duration rather than a casual visitor.\u201d The court quoted from United States v. Matlock as follows:\n\u201c \u2018When the prosecution seeks to justify a warrantless search by proof of voluntary consent it is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant, but may show that permission to search was obtained from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.\u2019 \u201d (525 F.2d 57, 59.)\nThe court held that the person who had admitted the officers was authorized to allow others to enter the premises.\nOf Turbyfill Professor LaFave observes:\n\u201cFinally, note must be taken of a case which is quite different *** namely, where the guest is actually present inside the premises at the time of the giving of the consent and the consent is merely to a police entry of the premises into an area where a visitor would normally be received. There is sound authority that, at least when the guest is more than a casual visitor and \u2018had the run of the house,\u2019 his lesser interest in the premises is sufficient to render that limited consent effective.\u201d (2 LaFave, Search and Seizure sec. 8.5(e), at 759 (1978).)\nIn Tu/rbyfill, as in the instant case, the defendant was on the premises at the time the guest gave consent to police to enter an area where a visitor would normally be received. Although Scott Shaffer was not \u201can occupant of indefinite duration,\u201d as was the guest in Turbyfill, neither was he merely a \u201ccasual visitor.\u201d He was the brother of defendant Richard Shaffer and a frequent visitor who had never been prevented from inviting friends into defendant\u2019s home. Under the circumstances we think that Scott Shaffer had sufficient relationship to the premises to allow others to enter and, hence, had actual authority to permit police to enter an area where a visitor would normally be received. Thus, the entry into defendants\u2019 residence by police was not unlawful. There is nothing in the record to suggest that defendant Richard Shaffer\u2019s subsequent consent to search was involuntarily given to the police. Therefore the trial court improperly granted defendants\u2019 motion to suppress evidence seized during the search of defendants\u2019 residence.\nReversed.\nHARRISON, P.J., and KASSERMAN, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE JONES" } ], "attorneys": [ "William C. Evers III, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of Collinsville, for appellant.", "Michael J. Reagan and Kevin C. Kaufhold, both of Kassly, Bone, Becker, Dix & Tillery, P.C., of Belleville, for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD D. SHAFFER et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFifth District\nNo. 82\u201453\nOpinion filed December 14, 1982.\nWilliam C. Evers III, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of Collinsville, for appellant.\nMichael J. Reagan and Kevin C. Kaufhold, both of Kassly, Bone, Becker, Dix & Tillery, P.C., of Belleville, for the People." }, "file_name": "1054-01", "first_page_order": 1076, "last_page_order": 1081 }