Court Opinion

ID: 9722387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:28:15.411816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:34.798519
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE INGLIS, specially concurring: I concur in the judgment but write separately because I respectfully disagree with certain statements and conclusions in the majority opinion. It is my opinion that there was no probable cause to issue a search warrant in this case before the police officers actually became aware that cocaine was at defendant’s office. However, I also believe that exigent circumstances existed such that the search and subsequent arrest were justified. The majority correctly points out that warrantless searches, such as the one in the case at bar, are per se unreasonable unless exigent circumstances are present. (Payton v. New York (1980), 445 U.S. 573, 586, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639, 651, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 1380; Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc. (1978), 436 U.S. 307, 311-12, 56 L. Ed. 2d 305, 310-11, 98 S. Ct. 1816, 1819-20.) Our supreme court has recently provided a lengthy, but not exhaustive, list of factors to consider when determining whether exigent circumstances are present. In People v. Foskey (1990), 136 Ill. 2d 66, the court set out several factors to consider, including: “(1) whether the offense under investigation was recently committed; (2) whether there was any deliberate or unjustifiable delay by the officers during which time a warrant could have been obtained; (3) whether a grave offense is involved, particularly one of violence; (4) whether the suspect was reasonably believed to be armed; (5) whether the police officers were acting upon a clear showing of probable cause; (6) whether there was a likelihood that the suspect would have escaped if not swiftly apprehended; (7) whether there was strong reason to believe that the suspect was on the premises; and (8) whether the police entry, though nonconsensual, was made peaceably.” Foskey, 136 Ill. 2d at 75. See also People v. White (1987), 117 Ill. 2d 194, 216-17, cert. denied (1988), 485 U.S. 1006, 99 L. Ed. 2d 698, 108 S. Ct. 1469. An examination of this list of factors leads me to conclude that several are present in this case. It is apparent that the offense under investigation (cocaine possession and distribution) was recently committed; there was no deliberate or unjustifiable delay during which a warrant could have been obtained; and there was more than a “strong reason” to believe that the suspect was on the premises. Unlike the majority, I find the decision in People v. Eichelberger (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 359, cert. denied (1982), 459 U.S. 1019, 74 L. Ed. 2d 514, 103 S. Ct. 383, supports a finding that exigent circumstances existed in this case. In Eichelberger, police officers, through an informer, set up a “controlled buy” of LSD from the defendant’s hotel room. The officers heard the informer and the defendant talking about the drug sale and entered the hotel room, arrested the defendant and seized LSD from the defendant’s pocket. The supreme court upheld the warrantless arrest and seizure, holding that “[t]he fact that the officers reasonably believed that a felony was being committed in their presence demanded prompt police action and constituted an exigent circumstance which justified the warrantless entry into the hotel room and the arrest.” Eichelberger, 91 Ill. 2d at 369. I would agree with the State that Eichelberger controls the disposition of this case and would therefore affirm on this basis.