{
  "id": 2848658,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Peterson, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Peterson",
  "decision_date": "1973-01-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 55585",
  "first_page": "938",
  "last_page": "940",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 Ill. App. 3d 938"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 298,
    "char_count": 4835,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.765,
    "sha256": "52db020f90980d2c88bc46ef198266f937baddafc1dbd8d7f0ccf7d9d312f92c",
    "simhash": "1:22087dc3f26e0b7b",
    "word_count": 812
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:41:33.026395+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. Roy Peterson, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE SCHWARTZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant was arrested and charged with the unlawful use of weapons in violation of Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 24 \u2014 1. Prior to trial he filed a motion to suppress evidence, which was denied following a hearing by the court. Jury being waived, the court heard the case and found defendant guilty as charged. He was sentenced to serve a term of five years on probation, the first year to be spent in a work release program. The facts follow.\nOn December 2, 1968, Sgt. John Walsh of the Chicago Police Department received information that a color television set which had been stolen from Yogi\u2019s Den could be found at the home of a man named Ray [or Roy] Peterson. The informer furnished an address where Peterson could be found, and warned the police that Peterson would be carrying a .25 caliber weapon. The informer, whose identity was not revealed, had not previously served Walsh in that capacity.\nSgt. Walsh then investigated and found that a color set was indeed missing from Yogi\u2019s Den. After noting the serial number he went to the address provided by the informer, but could find no apartment listed for Peterson. The owner of the building sent him to an apartment leased in the name of Gardner, where he was admitted by the defendant\u2019s brother-in-law, Lewis Gardner. Walsh explained his reason for being there, and Gardner allowed him to examine the television set in the front room of the apartment. The serial number was the same as that of the set taken from Yogi\u2019s Den. [There was testimony that Gardner told Walsh he had helped Peterson carry the television set into the Gardner apartment.] Walsh then placed Gardner under arrest, and waited for Peterson to arrive at the apartment, since Gardner said he was expecting him. When Peterson arrived he was placed under arrest, and a search of his person disclosed the concealed possession of a .25 caliber pistol.\nThe defendant filed a motion to suppress physical evidence, and a hearing was held. At the conclusion of the hearing the motion was denied, and the case then proceeded to trial. During the course of the trial the defendant moved to reopen the hearing on the motion to suppress, which was denied. The case was concluded with the court finding defendant guilty as charged. The defendant contends that it was error for the court to deny his motion to suppress evidence of the pistol. He bases this on the assumption that the search could only be made incident to a valid arrest and tihat in this case there was insufficient probable cause for the arrest. However, when the police officer was admitted to the apartment he found the stolen television set and learned that it was Peterson who had brought it to the apartment. This was sufficient corroboration of the information received, and constituted more than adequate probable cause. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 108 \u2014 1, provides that if there is probable cause for an arrest, subsequent search of defendant\u2019s person is justified. The fact that the search started with an informer of unproven reliability is of no consequence where, as here, there is sufficient corroborative evidence.\nDuring the trial defendant sought to reopen the hearing on the motion to suppress, so that Lewis Gardner might be called to testify. Gardner had testified at the trial, but not at the hearing on the motion to suppress. At the trial the hearsay rule would block certain testimony, but if the motion to suppress was reopened he could relate the conversation he had with Sgt. Walsh on the day of defendant\u2019s arrest.\nDefendant\u2019s motion was denied and the defense made an offer of proof that Gardner, if allowed to testify, would say that he never told Sgt. Walsh that he and the defendant carried the television set into the apartment. Defendant contends that this refusal to reopen the motion to suppress was reversible error.\nThere was ample evidence, aside from Gardner\u2019s statement, to corroborate the information received by Sgt. Walsh from the informer, since this evidence was in addition to and not part of the quantum of corroborative evidence necessary to justify the arrest. As the offer of proof of Gardner\u2019s testimony went only to Gardner\u2019s statement to Sgt. Walsh, we find no error in the trial court\u2019s refusal to reopen the hearing on the motion to suppress.\nJudgment affirmed.\nLEIGHTON and McGLOON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE SCHWARTZ"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Ronald P. Katz and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Elmer C. Kissane and Themis N. Kamezis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Peterson, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 55585;\nFirst District\nJanuary 16, 1973.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Ronald P. Katz and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Elmer C. Kissane and Themis N. Kamezis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0938-01",
  "first_page_order": 960,
  "last_page_order": 962
}