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. Apartment #16

OPINION FILED OCTOBER 14, 1977.

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

v.

APARTMENT #16 IN THE TWO-STORY BRICK APARTMENT BUILDING LOCATED AT 1334 JUNIPER, RANTOUL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Champaign County; the Hon. HAROLD L. JENSEN, Judge, presiding.

MR. JUSTICE REARDON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

This cause is in the nature of a return of an executed search warrant. Greg Lee Spoor, the alleged lessee of apartment 16 at 1334 Juniper, Rantoul, Illinois, appeals the denial of his motion praying the return of $2,500 which was alleged to have been unlawfully seized from his apartment on November 4, 1976.

The search warrant was issued by a judge of the circuit court for the sixth judicial circuit, Champaign County, on the sworn complaint of Angela Brough, a special agent for the Illinois Bureau of Investigation. Specifically, the warrant commanded that Spoor's apartment be searched and that "* * * the following instrument, articles and things which have been used in the commission of, or which constitute evidence of, the offense of unlawful possession and unlawful delivery of controlled substances and cannabis be seized therefrom: any and all controlled substances and cannabis, * * *." The return of all articles seized during the search discloses the seizure of suspected cannabis, suspected controlled substances, a set of scales, a pipe, a knife, ammunition, various papers and the $2,500 in United States currency which is the subject of this appeal.

On December 27, 1976, Spoor filed a verified motion for the return of his $2,500. Our record reflects that neither criminal charges against Spoor nor a forfeitures proceeding concerning the currency have been initiated by the State. The circuit court, however, conducted a hearing on defendant's motion on December 27, 1976.

At that hearing, agent Brough testified that she purchased narcotics from Spoor on three occasions including November 4, 1976. On each occasion Spoor placed the money which Brough handed him in his wallet. On November 4, 1976, Brough purchased $360 worth of hashish, cannabis, and phenycyclidine (P.C.P.). At that time Spoor told Brough that when he accumulated $500, he would put it together and put it away. Later that day, when Brough and other officers were executing the search warrant at Spoor's apartment, the officers uncovered the $2,500 in $500 bundles in the right-hand top drawer of a bedroom dresser. Although narcotics were not discovered in that drawer, a plastic bag suspected of containing hashish was found in another drawer of that same dresser. Brough testified that she did not know, prior to the search, that the money was in the dresser, however, Spoor subsequently stated at the police station that part of the money was obtained earlier in the day from Brough.

Section 12 of the Cannabis Control Act provides:

"(a) The following are subject to forfeiture:

(4) all money * * * which [is] used, or intended for use, in violation of this Act.

(b) Property subject to forfeiture under this Act may be seized by the Director [of the Department of Law Enforcement] or any peace officer upon process issued by any court having jurisdiction over the property. Seizure * * * without process may be made:

(2) If there is probable cause to believe that the property is directly or indirectly dangerous to health or safety; or

(3) In accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, as amended.

(c) In the event of seizure pursuant to subsection (b), proceedings under subsection (d) shall be instituted promptly.

(d) Property taken or detained under this Section shall not be subject to replevin, but is deemed to be in the custody of the Director subject only to the order and decrees of the circuit court having jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceedings." (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 56 1/2, par. 712(a)(4), (b)(2), (b)(3), (c), (d).)

Section 505(a)(4), (b)(3), (b)(4), (c) and (d) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 56 1/2, par. 1505(a)(4), (b)(3), (b)(4), (c), (d)) contains provisions identical to those quoted from section 12 of the Cannabis Control Act. As already noted, the proceeding ...


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.