{ "id": 2794760, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Brown, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Brown", "decision_date": "1975-09-04", "docket_number": "No. 60113", "first_page": "134", "last_page": "138", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "32 Ill. App. 3d 134" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "327 F.2d 301", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 120982 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "305" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/327/0301-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 Ill.2d 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2832192 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "243-4" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/31/0240-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 Ill. 2d 246", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2744036 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "256" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/19/0246-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 Ill.2d 361", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2737324 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "363" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/20/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 Ill.2d 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2761126 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "573" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/16/0569-01" ] }, { "cite": "374 U.S. 23", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8495 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "41" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/374/0023-01" ] }, { "cite": "242 N.E.2d 180", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 Ill. 2d 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2852973 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "173-74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/41/0170-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 N.E. 9", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "269 Ill. 256", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4799232 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/269/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "251 N.E.2d 923", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1915, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 Ill.App.2d 390", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1589992 ], "year": 1915, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/113/0390-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 N.E.2d 784", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 Ill. App.3d 281", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2614467 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/18/0281-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 F.2d 150", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 557800 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/209/0150-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 476, "char_count": 8629, "ocr_confidence": 0.736, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08449160549514663 }, "sha256": "04d38bb6988160273466f8b81aab90edc645a51a135605419fa67d0b60ad3140", "simhash": "1:18a4a8b26b56cb3d", "word_count": 1407 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:14:58.460223+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Brown, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE McGLOON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, George Brown, was charged with the offense of unlawful use of weapons in violation of section 24 \u2014 1(a) (10) of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 24 \u2014 1(a) (10)). After a motion to suppress the evidence was denied, the cause proceeded to a bench trial after which defendant was found guilty as charged and fined $50 plus $40 for court costs.\nThe only issue raised by defendant in this appeal is whether his conviction was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights to be free from unlawful searches and seizures.\nWe affirm.\nAt approximately 10 in the evening of December 8, 1973, Officer Richard Oswald and his partner stopped defendant at 1618 South Homan Avenue in Chicago after observing defendant operating his motor vehicle without its State license plates properly displayed. It is undisputed that defendant had properly applied for his license plates and had his license applied for sticker on the windshield of his automobile. However, the testimony concerning the events which occurred after defendant was stopped conflicts significantly.\nAt the hearing on the motion to suppress, only two witnesses, Officer Richard Oswald and defendant George Brown, testified. Defendant indicated that after leaving work he dropped a coworker off at a hardware store, drove around the block from the hardware store where he parked and was then approached by Officer Oswald and his partner in an unmarked vehicle. At this point, defendant\u2019s testimony is somewh\u00e1t confusing. On direct examination, defendant testified that Officer Oswald\u2019s partner then approached him and asked whose car he was driving. After defendant produced a bill of sale, the officer searched defendant\u2019s car with a flashlight and found a gun. On cross-examination, defendant testified he got out of the car when the' officer approached him and that the dome light in his car did not light up because the fuse had blown. In response to the court\u2019s questions, defendant stated that when the officers pulled up behind him, he got out of the car to ask what was wrong and closed the door behind him. Defendant stated that he talked to Officer Oswald\u2019s partner, not Officer Oswald, and that Officer Oswald had gone dovra the street to arrest defendant\u2019s coworker whom defendant had dropped off at the hardware store.\nOfficer Oswald, on the other hand, testified that after flagging down defendant\u2019s car, he stopped his own car and alighted therefrom. He then approached the driver\u2019s side of defendant\u2019s vehicle while his partner approached defendant\u2019s vehicle on the passenger side. After Officer Oswald asked defendant for his driver\u2019s license, defendant then got out of his car at which time the dome light in defendant\u2019s car went on. While the door to defendant\u2019s car was open and as defendant was standing in the doorway to his automobile between Officer Oswald and the front seat of defendant\u2019s automobile, Officer Oswald looked inside defendant\u2019s car and was able to see approximately 1 inch of the barrel of a gun protruding from underneath the front arm rest of defendant\u2019s car. Officer Oswald then arrested the defendant and he and his partner conducted a search- of the automobile, using a flashlight to search the areas not illuminated by the dome light. Officer Oswald further testified that the gun was loaded and that two other bullets were found in defendant\u2019s pocket. Concluding his testimony, Officer Oswald stated that it was he \u25a0that arrested defendant\u2019s coworker whom defendant had dropped off at the hardware store.\nDefendant correctly states in his brief that the credibility of a witness is normally a matter for the trier of fact to determine (United States v. McNutt (7th Cir. 1954), 209 F.2d 150; People v. Lewis (1974), 18 Ill. App.3d 281, 309 N.E.2d 784), but that when the evidence is so imprpbable and contrary to human experience courts on appeal will not hesitate to reverse. People v. Barfield (1969), 113 Ill.App.2d 390, 251 N.E.2d 923; People v. Davis (1915), 269 Ill. 256, 110 N.E. 9.\nOnly two witnesses, Officer Oswald and defendant, testified at the hearing on the suppression of evidence, and their testimony conflicts in significant regard. Defendant testified that if was Officer Oswald\u2019s partner, not Officer Oswald, who approached' defendant and that at that time the dome light in. defendant\u2019s car was not on, that in fact it was . not functioning because it had blown a fuse. Officer Oswald testified that it was he himself who approached the defendant and that at that time the dome light in defendant\u2019s car was on.\nDefendant contends that Officer Oswald\u2019s- testimony was so improbable and contrary to human experience as to be unworthy of belief. Defendant first argues that, assuming that it was Officer Oswald and not his partner that approached defendant\u2019s vehicle and that the dome fight- in defendant\u2019s vehicle was on, it was impossible for Officer Oswald to have seen the protruding 1 inch of the gun barrel because defendant was standing between Officer- Oswald and defendant\u2019s car. This specific point was considered and rejected by the trial court. Although the record does indicate that the defendant was between Officer Oswald and the: automobile, there is nothing in the record denoting that Officer Oswald could not see the front seat of defendant\u2019s car. There is nothing unbelievable about this aspect of Officer Oswald\u2019s testimony.\nDefendant next argues that it was not Officer Oswald, but Officer Oswald\u2019s partner who approached defendant and that to accept Officer Oswald\u2019s version, we would have to believe that Officer Oswald not only arrested defendant but went around the comer and arrested defendant\u2019s companion while his partner did virtually nothing. Defendant contends that.this is too contrary to human experience to be worthy of belief. We disagree. There is nothing so improbable about Officer Oswald\u2019s both arresting defendant\u2019s coworker and conducting the search of defendant\u2019s vehicle that would make his testimony unworthy of belief. In the instant case the credibility of the witnesses\u2019 testimony was properly a matter for the trial court and the trial court believed Officer Oswald.\n. In the instant case, the arresting officer saw the barrel of a gun protruding from under the front arm rest of defendant\u2019s automobile. Under the \u201cplain view\u201d doctrine, the search of defendant\u2019s car was jiot unlawful or unreasonable. As stated in People v. Wright (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 170, 173-74, 242 N.E.2d 180, 183:\n\u201c * * It is well established that a search without a warrant is reasonable and valid if it is incident to a lawful arrest and there is no requirement that the arrest be under the authority of an arrest warrant. (Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 41, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726.) In turn, the validity of an arrest without a warrant depends upon whether the officers had reasonable cause to believe that an offense had been committed and that the defendant had committed it. (People v. Jones, 16 Ill.2d 569, 573.) The test'is not whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the arrested person, but probable cause exists for arrest where a reasonable and prudent man, having the knowledge possessed by the officer at the time of the arrest, would believe the defendant committed the offense. (People v. Hightower, 20 Ill.2d 361, 363.) In deciding the question in a particular case, courts deal with probabilities and are not disposed to bq unduly technical. (People v. Fiorito, 19 Ill. 2d 246, 256.)\u2019 People v. Jones, 31 Ill.2d 240, 243-4.\nIn Davis v. United States (9th Cir.), 327 F.2d 301, 305, the rule is stated that \u2018 \u201cIt is well established that it is not a search to observe what is open and patent either in daylight or in artificial light, [citations]\u201d * \u00b0 V\u201d\nConsidering the fact that Officer Oswald saw the gun barrel in \u201cplain view,\u201d we conclude that under the standard in Wright the search was reasonable and incidental to a valid arrest, and that the evidence seized was properly admitted into evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.\nJudgment affirmed.\nDEMPSEY and MEJDA, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE McGLOON" } ], "attorneys": [ "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Marilyn D. Israel and Ronald P. Alwin, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Thomas D. Rafter, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People," ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Brown, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 60113;\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nSeptember 4, 1975.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Marilyn D. Israel and Ronald P. Alwin, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Thomas D. Rafter, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People," }, "file_name": "0134-01", "first_page_order": 160, "last_page_order": 164 }