Opinion ID: 1182146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Duty to Check Premises

Text: (4) The People contend the officer had a duty to search the apartment for burglars, even though defendant did not consent, on any one of three theories: (1) Defendant himself might have been a burglar; (2) there might have been a burglar in the apartment of whom defendant was unaware; or (3) there might have been a burglar who was keeping defendant hostage. None of these theories withstands scrutiny when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling  again, as it must be. First, suspicion defendant was a burglar should have been dispelled when the manager confirmed defendant lived in the apartment. Second, the only reason for believing a burglar was in defendant's apartment was the report an unidentified man had entered a rear window. When defendant explained it had been he, there was no longer cause for believing another might be there without defendant's knowledge. Third, the fact defendant stepped out of the apartment to talk to the officer made the hostage possibility unlikely.