{ "id": 2918732, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Ronald E. Portis, Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Portis", "decision_date": "1972-03-03", "docket_number": "No. 55328", "first_page": "333", "last_page": "336", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "4 Ill. App. 3d 333" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "273 N.E.2d 261", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "389 U.S. 828", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11356643, 11356903, 11357001, 11357102, 11357170, 11356825, 11356732 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/389/0828-01", "/us/389/0828-04", "/us/389/0828-05", "/us/389/0828-06", "/us/389/0828-07", "/us/389/0828-03", "/us/389/0828-02" ] }, { "cite": "224 N.E.2d 225", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 Ill.2d 505", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5377746 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/36/0505-01" ] }, { "cite": "393 U.S. 410", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11317375 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/393/0410-01" ] }, { "cite": "378 U.S. 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" ] }, { "cite": "245 N.E.2d 487", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 Ill.2d 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2847508 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/42/0042-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 403, "char_count": 6595, "ocr_confidence": 0.716, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5155893493419874e-07, "percentile": 0.6683420539189736 }, "sha256": "dfec4390c8a0942b59e507bcd3b7455e50911ca1789a3ff7eb8e5d80734ed6fc", "simhash": "1:e61a68e8ddf40bb5", "word_count": 1073 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:19.595106+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Ronald E. Portis, Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DRUCKER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal by the State pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 110A, par. 604(a)), of the trial court\u2019s order to quash a search warrant and suppress evidence seized thereunder. The State\u2019s sole contention on appeal is that the warrant is sufficient on its face to establish probable cause and the court therefore erred in quashing the warrant.\nOn May 2, 1970, Officer Ollie Cotton submitted the following affidavit in support of his complaint for a search warrant:\nThe complainant is a police officer assigned to the 003rd. District vice unit on the 30th April 1970 I was advised of the following facts from a reliable informant who has given me good and reliable information in the past and it has led to the arrest of several persons involved in narcotics, whereas we have one conviction and one bond forfeiture warrant and two cases pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County. He stated to me that a man named Ronnie who works at 425 East 71st St., Chicago, Illinois (1st floor store). As a cook he sells small bags of marijuana and pills from the restaurant. He knows this because he has bought some marijuana from him on the 29th, April 1970. From certain observation it is believed by the complainant that there is a narcotic violation being carried on at this location.\nThe warrant issued on the same day and pursuant thereto marijuana and heroin were seized. The defendant was subsequently indicted for possession of marijuana and heroin in violation of Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 22 \u2014 3.\nDefendant filed a pre-trial motion to quash the warrant. Paragraph 4 of said motion alleged the following:\n\u201cThat the warrant is based upon information given by an informer, whose reliability is not sufficiently established in the complaint for search warrant.\u201d\nThe subsequent proceedings on the motion to quash revolved around this issue. The gist of defendant\u2019s argument was summarized by his defense counsel as:\n\u201cIt would be my contention * * *, that reliability has not sufficiently been established; that merely because an informer has given information which resulted in one person being convicted and one bond forfeiture and a couple of cases pending, that does not show that he is reliable in regard to the legal definition of reliability.\u201d\nThe State\u2019s Attorney subsequently stated that he understood defendant\u2019s argument to relate entirely to paragraph 4 of his motion, set forth supra.\nThe court quashed the warrant stating that the reliability of the informant had not been shown by the facts stated in the affidavit. The judge felt that the warrant should have stated the numbers and names of the cases as to which the informant\u2019s previous information had led to conviction or pending prosecutions. He made the following comment:\n\u201cThe question that has bothered me and continues to bother me, until somebody shows me a satisfactory explanation, is why it is really not possible to just add the additional language in here of. \u201cWe had had one conviction and that is People v. John Doe,\u2019 or whatever the name of the case is.\nYou [referring to the States Attorney] contend this might disclose the informant. I say it\u2019s difficult to understand your reasoning #\nPeople v. Parker, 42 Ill.2d 42, 245 N.E.2d 487, was cited in support of the ruling.\nThe State argues that the affidavit shows that there were \"some * * * underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant, * * * was credible\u2019 or his information reliable.\u2019 \u201d (Emphasis supplied.) (Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114.) The affidavit set forth that the informant was reliable since he had given the affiant reliable information in the past which led to one conviction and other arrests; two of these cases were still pending and in another there had been a bond forfeiture. These allegations are sufficient against a motion to quash the warrant. People v. Ranson, (Ill.App. First Dist. No. 55387), (N.E.2d).\nIn People v. Ranson, supra, the affidavit submitted in support of the warrant stated that the informant had given the affiant \u201cinformation in the past which resulted in convictions and arrests pertaining to narcotics cases made by me.\u201d In holding that the above language was sufficient to uphold the warrant, the court stated:\n\u201cUnlike the affidavit in Aguilar [Aguilar v. Texas, supra] which contained the naked assertion that the informant was credible, or the recital in Spinelli [Spinelli v. United States (1969), 393 U.S. 410] that the Government learned from a reliable informant\u2019 that Spinelli was operating a handbook and accepting wagers, the complaint in the present case was bolstered by the affiant\u2019s statement that information supplied by the informant had led to arrests and convictions in narcotic cases. The substantiation of the informant\u2019s reliability met the test required by Illinois law. In People v. Williams (1967), 36 Ill.2d 505, 224 N.E.2d 225, cert, denied (1967), 389 U.S. 828, the court found corroboration unnecessary where sufficiently detailed observations of reliable informers were presented in the affidavit. Reliability was established in Williams by the sole allegation that the informers had furnished reliable information in the past.\u2019 \u201d\nIn People v. Brian Cook, (Ill.App. First Dist. No. 55359), 273 N.E.2d 261, the court found the informant reliable on the basis of his affidavit that he had furnished information which led to one conviction, one complaint stricken with leave to reinstate, and a third pending case.\nPeople v. Parker, 42 Ill.2d 42, 245 N.E.2d 487, relied on by the trial court, is not authority for quashing the instant warrant. In Parker the affidavit stated that \u201c[the complainant] has been informed by an informant who has previously given information to said complainant which proved to be true * \u201d As the court noted in People v. Ranson, supra, this allegation was merely a general averment of reliability unsubstantiated by the type of specificity contained in the instant affidavit. The order quashing the warrant is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.\nLORENZ, P. J., and ENGLISH, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DRUCKER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Joseph Romano, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People.", "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Harold A. Cowen, Ronald P. Katz, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Ronald E. Portis, Appellee.\n(No. 55328;\nFirst District\nMarch 3, 1972.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Joseph Romano, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Harold A. Cowen, Ronald P. Katz, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellee." }, "file_name": "0333-01", "first_page_order": 353, "last_page_order": 356 }