Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Singleton

DECEMBER 11, 1973.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

FLOYD SINGLETON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. ARTHUR V. ZELEZINSKI, Judge, presiding.

PER CURIAM:

The defendant, Floyd Singleton, was charged with the offense of possession of marijuana in that he knowingly did and unlawfully have in his possession and under his control a quantity of cannabis sativa, commonly known as marijuana, in violation of section 704 of the Cannabis Control Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 56 1/2, par. 704). After a bench trial, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to one year in the House of Correction.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence.

At the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, Police Officer John Beach testified that prior to June 8, 1972, he had been investigating narcotics activity at Harlan High School, 9648 S. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, in connection with his assignment as a youth officer. Beach had been observing the defendant and the Good Humor Ice Cream truck from which he worked for four or five weeks and over that period he had received a half-dozen reports that the defendant was selling marijuana from the truck.

On June 8, 1972, Beach sent an informant to the defendant's truck to investigate the purported sales of marijuana. Beach had received information from this informant on four previous occasions. He had acted upon this information and had retrieved contraband on all four occasions. Incident to the information provided and the retrieval of contraband, four arrests and subsequent convictions had resulted.

The informant, acting upon instructions given by Beach, approached the truck and stood close to it to determine if purchases of anything other than the ice cream were being made. From a vantage point inside the school, Beach could see the informant as he approached the truck and mingled with a group of young people who were standing around the truck. The informant went to the window of the truck and stood there for three or four minutes.

When the informant returned, he told Beach that marijuana was being sold from the truck; that he saw the defendant sell an envelope while the informant was standing at the window; and that the bulk of the contraband was in a white bag in an overhead compartment above the driver's seat, which bag was visible from the street.

Beach called for an assist car and proceeded to the location of the truck. As he approached the truck, Beach was able to see the white bag himself, from his vantage point on the street. Beach approached the defendant and asked him to step from the truck. With the assistance of Police Officer Arm, the defendant was placed under arrest. Seventeen bags of marijuana in a white Good Humor bag were retrieved from the overhead compartment of the truck. A search of the defendant's person resulted in the recovery of an additional smaller packet of marijuana.

The defendant's motion to suppress evidence was denied. At the trial, Beach testified that the laboratory analysis established the substances in both the large bag and the smaller packet taken from the defendant were marijuana. The defendant did not present any evidence.

The defendant argues that a person may be arrested without a warrant only when the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is committing or had committed an offense; that a warrantless arrest may be made only where the totality of the facts and circumstances justify the arresting officer in believing that the defendant is the offender; and that in the case at bar, the arresting officer did not have the requisite probable cause to arrest the defendant. The People contend that the arrest of the defendant was based upon probable cause; that the evidence relating to that arrest was properly obtained; and that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress.

• 1, 2 In People v. Marino, 44 Ill.2d 562, 256 N.E.2d 770, the court held that an arrest may be made by a police officer without a warrant when he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be arrested was committing, has committed or is in the process of committing a crime; that whether reasonable grounds exist depends upon the totality of the facts and circumstances of the arrest and such determination must be made upon practical considerations of everyday life upon which reasonable and prudent men must act; that while probable cause or reasonable ground presupposes more than mere suspicion on the part of the arresting officer, an arrest may be made on something less than evidence which would result in conviction; and that probable cause may be founded upon evidence not admissible at the trial of the charge in question.

• 3 It has also been held that probable cause may be based on information provided by an informant where the reliability of the informant has been previously established or independently corroborated. People v. Bambulas, 42 Ill.2d 419, 247 N.E.2d 873; People v. Lawrence, 133 Ill. App.2d 542, 273 N.E.2d 637; People v. Gant, 14 Ill. App.3d 282, 302 N.E.2d 376.

• 4 From the facts in the case at bar, Beach and his partner Arm, had reasonable grounds to arrest defendant without a warrant (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 107-2(c); People v. McDonald, 26 Ill.2d 325, 186 N.E.2d 303). The arrest was lawful and a search incidental to it could be made. Section 108-1 of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 108-1) applies to a search without a warrant and provides:

"Search without Warrant.) When a lawful arrest is effected a peace officer may reasonably search the person arrested and the area within such person's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.