Additionally, Officers Marozas and Maras were justified in following defendant
into his garage to seize him and the weapon he discarded there. A warrantless entry
into a private place to make an arrest is justified when police are in “hot pursuit” of a
suspect. United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 43 (1976), Hot pursuit is an exigent
circumstance and provides an exception to the fourth amendment requirement that
police officers obtain a warrant prior to a search or seizure. Mason v. Godinez, 47 F.3d
852, 855 (7" Cir. 1995). Furthermore, once a person has been arrested, a search
incident to the arrest is justified and any evidence produced from the search is lawfully
obtained and admissible. United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 43 (1976).

Officer Marozas observed defendant with a semi-automatic handgun in a public
alley. Once the officers announced their office and defendant fled into his garage,
requiring the police to chase him, the officers were in “hot pursuit” of defendant. While
in hot pursuit of the defendant, Officer Marozas saw him throw the weapon under a car
in the garage. Officer Maras made a search incident to defendant's arrest to locate the
gun after officer Marozas seized and arrested defendant.

Conclusion

This Court recommends that the District Court DENY defendant’s motion to
quash arrest and suppress evidence because the officers had probable cause to arrest
defendant after they observed him activating the laser sighting device on a semi-
automatic handgun in a public alley and because the handgun was obtained in a search
incident to defendant's arrest. Specific written objections to this report and
recommendation may be served and filed within 10 business days from the date that
this order is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Failure to file objections with the District

4


Smith & Wesson semi-automatic 9mm handgun equipped with a laser sighting devise
and thirteen live rounds of ammunition. The officers did not have an arrest warrant
when they arrested defendant.

Legal Analysis

An arrest may be effectuated with probable cause but without a warrant when
committed in the presence of a police officer. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411,
418 (1976). “Probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard. It merely requires
that the facts available to the officer would ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the
belief ” that a crime has been committed. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1982).
“Probable cause exists when at the moment an arrest is made officers have ‘facts and
circumstances within their knowledge and of which they [have] reasonable trustworthy
information’ that would sufficiently ‘warrant a prudent [man] in believing that the
[suspect] had committed or was committing the offense.” United States v. Muhammad,
120 F.3d 688, 696 (7" Cir. 1997) quoting Beck v. Ohio, 397 U.S. 89, 91 (1964).

The officers in this case had probable cause to arrest defendant. Officer
Marozas testified that while on duty as a Chicago Police Officer, he observed defendant
in possession of a semi-automatic handgun equipped with a laser sighting device. The
officer also observed defendant point the handgun at several objects and activate the
laser sight. Defendant is charged with possession of a firearm while a felon and Officer
Marozas’ testimony that he saw defendant with a firearm is sufficient to establish
probable cause for the arrest. See United States v. Sawyer, 224 F.3d 675 (7 Cir.

2000).


Court within the specified time will result in a waiver of the right to appeal all findings,

factual and legal, made by this Court in the report and recommendation. Lorentzen v.

Anderson Pest Control, 64 F.3d 327, 330 (7" Cir. 1995).

Dated:

February 5, 2002

ENTER:

Mahe Hato
MICHAEL T. MASON
United States Magistrate Judge



4. Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Elaine E. Bucklo Sitting Judge if Other Michael T. Mason
‘or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 CR 923 - 1 DATE 2/5/2002
CASE United States vs. Glen Young
TITLE

[In the foltowing box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.)

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) im Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) im Brief in support of motion due

(3) Oo Answet brief to motion due_____. Reply to answer briefdue__

(4) Qo Ruling/Hearingon_ eset for____att

(5) im Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—s set for_ at

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__——sat__—
(e) im Trial[set for/re-set for]on___at

(8) oO [Bench/Jury tria!] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

COFRCP4(m) General Rule 21 COFRCP41(a(1) CI FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) | | [Other docket entry] | Report and Recommendation is hereby submitted to Judge Bucklo recommending
that defendant's motion to quash arrest [17-1] and suppress evidence [17-2] be denied for the reasons stated in the
attached Report and Recommendation. Specific written objections to this report and recommendations may be
served and filed within 10 business days from the date this order is served. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Failure to file
objections with theDistrict Court within the specified time will result in a waiver of the right to appeal all findings,
factual and legal, made by this court in the report and recommendations. Lorentzen vs. Anderson Pest Control,
64F 3d 372,330 (7th Cir. 1995). All matters relating to the referral of this action having been concluded, the

referral is closed and the case is returned to the assigned judge. ag

al) wf {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court,

Document,
Number

No notices required.

o | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices,

Mail AO 450 form.

Y | Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed notice
courtroom

KF deputy’s
initials

wot

awe ames
Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy fikals

ey


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 01 CR 923-1
)
GLEN YOUNG ) Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo
) Magistrate Judge Michael T. Mason
Defendant. ) y
say Ut
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION o, (heey
19D
&

The District Court has referred this case to this Court for Report and
Recommendation on defendant Glen Young’s Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress
Evidence. The motion raises the issues of whether there was probable cause to arrest
the defendant and whether the evidence in the case — specifically a weapon — was
lawfully obtained. This Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on February 1, 2002.
After carefully considering the sworn testimony of the sole witness, Officer Mike
Marozas, defendant’s sworn affidavit, briefs submitted by both parties and the police
report from the night in question, we find that Officer Marozas’ testimony is credible, and
that defendant's affidavit - which merely denies the events described by Officer
Marozas — lacks credibility. The following constitutes our findings of fact and
conclusions of law in which we respectfully recommend that the District Court deny
defendant's motion, finding that there was probable cause to arrest defendant and that

the evidence in question was lawfully obtained.


Findings of Fact

In the late evening of April 20, 2001, two Chicago Police Officers, Officer
Marozas and Officer Maras, were on routine patrol when a citizen informed them that
two men in the alley behind 7835 S. Constance had a gun. Upon receipt of that
information, the officers drove to the alley in question and Officer Marozas set up
surveillance.

While monitoring the area, Officer Marozas saw the defendant holding a handgun
and pointing it at various objects including a trash can, garage door, and light pole.
Because a red dot of light appeared on each object the defendant aimed at, the officer
could teil it was equipped with a laser sighting device and that the defendant was
activating the laser sight. Officer Marozas informed Officer Maras about what he had
seen and the two officers approached defendant and his companion, who were standing
in the alley in front of an open garage.

As the officers approached defendant, they announced that they were police and
that the two men should stand still. Defendant fled into the open garage, which
corresponded to 7835 S. Constance, and the officers gave chase. As defendant fled,
Officer Marozas observed him throw the weapon he had been holding under a car in the
garage. At that point Officer Marozas was eight to ten feet away from defendant and
could clearly see defendant and the weapon. The officer then entered the garage and
seized defendant, taking him to his unmarked police car and placing him under arrest.
Officer Marozas then directed Officer Maras to the exact location he had seen the
defendant throw the gun; Officer Maras recovered the weapon from precisely where

Officer Marozas said it would be under the car. The weapon was later identified as a

2