{
  "id": 2815713,
  "name": "THE CITY OF PEORIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT E. LYNN et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Peoria v. Lynn",
  "decision_date": "1976-12-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 75-467",
  "first_page": "697",
  "last_page": "698",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 3d 697"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "243 N.E.2d 363",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 Ill. App. 2d 279",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2900465
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/101/0279-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "323 N.E.2d 553",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ill. App. 3d 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2703256
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/25/0536-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 N.E.2d 810",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "813"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill. App. 3d 1072",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2854206
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1074"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/12/1072-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 S. Ct. 1152",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 L. Ed. 2d 418",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "420 U.S. 939",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11655898,
        11655845,
        11655911
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/420/0939-02",
        "/us/420/0939-01",
        "/us/420/0939-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 S. Ct. 130",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 L. Ed. 2d 109",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "419 U.S. 870",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6349207,
        6347617,
        6348809,
        6348458,
        6348235,
        6347822,
        6349006,
        6348663,
        6347993,
        6349439
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/419/0870-09",
        "/us/419/0870-01",
        "/us/419/0870-07",
        "/us/419/0870-05",
        "/us/419/0870-04",
        "/us/419/0870-02",
        "/us/419/0870-08",
        "/us/419/0870-06",
        "/us/419/0870-03",
        "/us/419/0870-10"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 N.E.2d 176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill. App. 3d 911",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2682658
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/14/0911-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "358 N.E.2d 715",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 3d 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2811006
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/44/0601-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 268,
    "char_count": 3567,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.871,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.250139937787106e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6098865223416501
    },
    "sha256": "147523d254e7ff599e8a716a8d22b3e190532d325bf59f829d062e7853c8bf39",
    "simhash": "1:a19854c73a356c89",
    "word_count": 602
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:25:08.154218+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE CITY OF PEORIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT E. LYNN et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE STENGEL\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis case is companion to No. 75-451 filed this same date, People v. Zimmerman (3d Dist. 1976), 44 Ill. App. 3d 601, 358 N.E.2d 715. Here the City of Peoria appeals from the trial court\u2019s order granting defendants\u2019 motions to suppress evidence and to return the property which was seized.\nDuring oral argument in this case, defendants moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that this court lacked jurisdiction due to the city\u2019s failure to file a notice of appeal. The record contains a document entitled \u201cNotice of Appeal and Praecipe for Record and Proof of Service,\u201d which was timely filed and sent to defendants and their attorneys. This document is woefully inadequate as to form.\nThe only jurisdictional step in the perfection of an appeal is the filing of the notice of appeal. (Supreme Court Rule 301 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 301).) Inasmuch as notice of appeal was filed, we do not believe that we are without jurisdiction, and, as we can perceive no prejudice to defendants from the inadequacies of the form of the notice of appeal, we have determined to decide the cause on the merits. City of Chicago v. Hutter (1st Dist. 1973), 14 Ill. App. 3d 911, 303 N.E.2d 176, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 870, 42 L. Ed. 2d 109, 95 S. Ct. 130, rehearing denied, 420 U.S. 939, 43 L. Ed. 2d 418, 95 S. Ct. 1152; Department of Transportation v. Galley (5th Dist. 1973), 12 Ill. App. 3d 1072, 1074, 299 N.E.2d 810, 813.\nDefendants were charged with a violation of the city\u2019s gambling ordinance. Motions to suppress evidence were filed, alleging that money was taken from each defendant in an unlawful search. At the suppression hearing, the evidence consisted of a stipulation that specific sums of money were taken from each defendant by a Peoria police officer, and that at the time of the taking, the money was in each defendant\u2019s pockets. The trial court ordered the evidence suppressed and the money returned to defendants, finding that there was a search without warrant or consent, and that the search was unlawful.\nAt a hearing on a motion to suppress, the defendant has the burden of coming forward with evidence to prove the unlawfulness of a search and seizure. (See section 114\u201412(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 114\u201412(b)).) However, once the defendant establishes prima facie that the search was unlawful the burden then shifts to the prosecution to present evidence showing the legal justification for the search. People v. Normant (1st Dist. 1975), 25 Ill. App. 3d 536, 323 N.E.2d 553.\nHere the stipulation shows that money was taken from defendants\u2019 pockets by a police officer. There is no evidence of unusual activity by defendants, nor was there evidence of an arrest which could justify the search as incident to the arrest. Accordingly, we believe that defendants met their burden of proof in establishing a prima facie unlawful search and seizure. (See, e.g., People v. Cassell (1st Dist. 1968), 101 Ill. App. 2d 279, 243 N.E.2d 363.) In the absence of evidence by the prosecution showing the justification for the search, the trial court acted properly in granting defendants\u2019 motion to suppress.\nAccordingly, the Circuit Court of Peoria County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSTOUDER, P. J., and BARRY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE STENGEL"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brian Nemenoff, of Peoria, for appellant.",
      "Jack Brunnenmeyer, of Peoria, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE CITY OF PEORIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT E. LYNN et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nThird District\nNo. 75-467\nOpinion filed December 29, 1976.\nBrian Nemenoff, of Peoria, for appellant.\nJack Brunnenmeyer, of Peoria, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0697-01",
  "first_page_order": 727,
  "last_page_order": 728
}