Court Opinion

ID: 9709561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:51:03.184597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:50.128100
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOWERTON, dissenting: The sole question in this case is whether the police had probable cause to believe that defendant had committed the crime of illegal possession of cocaine. The facts from which defendant’s possession of cocaine can be inferred are these: (1) Defendant shared a bedroom with Frank Dunn during a visit to defendant’s sister’s house; (2) both defendant and Dunn brought luggage — defendant brought a train case; Dunn brought a tote bag; (3) because defendant’s sister suspected that defendant was abusing drugs, she surreptitiously searched both defendant’s and Dunn’s luggage, finding only her sister’s belongings in the train case and finding only Dunn’s belongings in the tote bag; (4) defendant’s sister found cocaine only in Dunn’s tote bag; (5) defendant’s sister told police that she found cocaine in Dunn’s tote bag but none in defendant’s case; and (6) defendant and Dunn, with their luggage, left the sister’s house in defendant’s car. This is the sum total of the evidence from which possession can be inferred. The majority states that this evidence justifies a belief that defendant possessed cocaine and that a warrantless arrest was proper. I cannot agree. Possession is either actual or constructive. (People v. Scott (1987), 152 Ill. App. 3d 868, 505 N.E.2d 42.) A person actually possesses cocaine when it is in that person’s manual custody or when the person knows of its existence and has immediate and exclusive control over it. (People v. Griffin (1990), 194 Ill. App. 3d 286, 550 N.E.2d 1244.) Possession, however, can be imputed to a person or inferred when that person has exclusive control over the premises where the cocaine was found. (People v. Evans (1986), 143 Ill. App. 3d 236, 492 N.E.2d 1036.) This is known as constructive possession. See, e.g., People v. Scott (1987), 152 Ill. App. 3d 868, 505 N.E.2d 42 (where this court sustained a conviction of possession because drugs were found in a dresser drawer shared by both defendant and his girlfriend). In the case at bar, it is undisputed that defendant did not actually possess the cocaine. Therefore, the question upon which this case turns is whether the facts support a reasonable inference that the area where the cocaine was found was subject to defendant’s exclusive control. Here, the cocaine was in Dunn’s bag, not defendant’s bag. The only thing defendant did with respect to Dunn’s bag was to drive it around in her car. No evidence exists to imply that she knew that Dunn possessed cocaine, and knowledge is the most critical ingredient to the crime of possession. People v. Truelock (1966), 35 Ill. 2d 189, 220 N.E.2d 187. In this case, therefore, there were insufficient facts to support an inference that there was probable cause to believe defendant possessed cocaine. In consequence, the circuit court, in my judgment, correctly quashed the arrest.