Court Opinion

ID: 9528315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:39:43.513314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:42.067017
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE NEVILLE, dissenting: I respectfully dissent in this case because I believe the majority (1) failed to give due deference to the trial court’s findings; and (2) used the hot pursuit and exigent circumstances doctrines to justify and legitimize the illegal arrest of the defendant and the search of his apartment. The case before this court involves extensive trial court findings. In order to understand the trial court’s decision granting Tillman’s motion to suppress, I think we should examine all the trial court’s findings. While holding the hearing on Tillman’s motion to suppress, the trial court made the following findings during the first hearing: “I will make a finding right now. I believe that the police officers when they tell me that they were in hot pursuit of what they believe to be felony activity, I believe that they had a right to be in the apartment because they were in hot pursuit of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Stampley. I don’t have a problem with that getting into the apartment. Mr. Tillman is in a little bit of a different posture. He actually lives there. He’s got absolute standing there. Now, when the police — they got there rightfully. And I don’t have any concern with what they’re doing in the apartment, and they certainly have a right to make seizures as to Mr. Stampley and Mr. Goldman. Mr. Tillman, though, and other people in the apartment, I think we have to start looking at it through fresh eyes and see does something happen while the police are in the apartment lawfully that would give them probable cause to start making seizures. Now, tell me about Mr. Tillman’s conduct and how that amounts to probable cause? *** I’ll concede that the police have a right to be there. Now, tell me why they have a right to make seizure of Mr. Tillman. What did they see Mr. Tillman do before they broke the law further to see what it really was? Well, if there was evidence that I found credible that he was committing a crime in plain view, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But what I heard about Mr. Tillman is ambiguous, somewhat ambiguous, because the officer is being candid. He says, I don’t know what he had in his hand. I don’t know what he’s doing exactly.” After continuing the hearing, the trial court made additional findings when granting Tillman’s motion to suppress: “In this case, the police do not know what it was that Mr. Tillman put in that hole. And there may have been lots of things other than contraband or matters of danger that he put in the hole. Maybe he was getting rid of some of his own money. Who knows what it was? It could have been anything. It is kind of actually neutral conduct. Looking at this in its totality the Court must answer this question. Would a warrant — Would a search warrant be issued for Mr. Tillman with these facts at hand, and I am not so sure that it would. I have considered this carefully. I do not believe that the police have a right to start destroying somebody’s home, breaking through dry wall even though other people that didn’t live there had run into the home. They had a right to make his seizures of those people, but I think the breaking of the walls without knowing exactly what it was they were looking for in this Court’s mind does go to the other side of the Fourth Amendment for that which is allowed. The motion is allowed.” This case involves an issue of first impression; therefore, it requires an examination of Illinois case law. The first question presented in this case is, Did the majority use the appropriate standard of review? I think the answer to this question is no. In People v. Sorenson, 196 Ill. 2d 425 (2001), the supreme court pointed out that findings of historical fact should be reviewed only for clear error and that reviewing courts must give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by the fact finder. Sorenson, 196 Ill. 2d at 431, citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911, 920, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 1663 (1996). I believe the majority violated the Sorenson rule because the majority failed to give due weight to the inferences drawn from the historical facts by the fact finder. I do not believe, given the totality of the circumstances, that the following findings of the trial court were clearly erroneous: (1) that “[W]hat I heard about Tillman is ambiguous” because the officer said he did not know what Tillman had in his hand and the officer did not know what Tillman was doing; (2) that “the police did not know what it was that Tillman put in that hole”; (3) “that there may have been lots of things other than contraband”; and (4) that “It is kind of neutral conduct.” The majority “disagreed” with the trial court’s characterization of Tillman’s activities in the apartment being “neutral conduct” given the totality of the circumstances. The majority must do more than disagree with the trial court’s characterization of the evidence. According to Sorenson, the majority must find that the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous. Sorenson, 196 Ill. 2d at 431, citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911, 920, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 1663 (1996). By failing to make a clearly erroneous finding before commenting on and then reversing the trial court’s findings, the majority has violated the standard of review rules followed by Illinois courts. Sorenson, 196 Ill. 2d at 431, citing Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 699, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 920, 116 S. Ct. at 1663. I believe the trial court’s findings were correct based on the totality of the circumstances. “[A]t the very core [of the fourth amendment] stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589-90, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639, 653, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 1382 (1980). Tillman was not afforded this right by the police. Officer Seinitz testified that when he entered the apartment he saw Mr. Tillman, but he was not sure what he had in his hands and that he followed Tillman to the rear of his apartment “because of his movements.” I believe that Tillman’s conduct was neutral conduct because Tillman was the leaseholder of the apartment; therefore, he had a fourth amendment right to be in and to move around his apartment without interference from the police. A concomitant of Tillman’s fourth amendment right to be in the apartment was his right to privacy. In light of Tillman’s fourth amendment rights, when the police did not have an arrest warrant or a search warrant or consent to search the apartment, Tillman’s walking or even running around the apartment would not justify a police officer following him around the apartment or searching the apartment for contraband. The majority found that the police had probable cause to arrest Tillman because the officers had a reasonable belief that Tillman was attempting to hide contraband. I submit that if the police did not know what Tillman had in his hand while standing in his living room, their lack of knowledge could not be characterized as a reasonable belief that he was attempting to hide contraband. Instead, the police had what is commonly known as “a suspicion.” Suspicion does not provide probable cause and was not a justification for the police to arrest Tillman or search his residence. Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 101, 4 L. Ed. 2d 134, 138, 80 S. Ct. 168, 170 (1959) (rumors, reports, suspicion or strong reason to suspect are not adequate probable cause to support a warrant for arrest). The majority also argues that the exigent circumstances created by Tillman’s codefendants dropping contraband on the steps and attempting to elude the police by running up 11 flights of steps into Tillman’s apartment provided probable cause to arrest Tillman inside his apartment when he was never seen outside the apartment by the police. In People v. Johnson, 94 Ill. 2d 148, 159 (1983), the supreme court held that the attempted flight by one defendant for a separate crime cannot be used to elevate the suspicion of the police to the level of probable cause for another person’s arrest. Johnson, 94 Ill. 2d at 159. Johnson makes it clear that exigent circumstances may be created when felons are fleeing from the police, but the crimes or exigent circumstances that provided probable cause to enter Tillman’s apartment and arrest the fleeing felons cannot be imputed to Tillman to provide probable cause for the police to arrest Tillman or search his apartment. Johnson, 94 Ill. 2d at 159. Finally, since the police did not observe Tillman committing a crime, Tillman’s arrest cannot be justified by the contraband discovered after the warrantless, nonconsensual entry into his apartment. Henry, 361 U.S. at 103, 4 L. Ed. 2d at 139, 80 S. Ct. at 171. The majority also argues that it was permissible for the officers to search Tillman’s residence because they feared for their safety. I disagree for two reasons. First, it is axiomatic that neither the United States Constitution nor the Illinois Constitution permits the police to use their safety as a justification for their unlimited search of Tillman’s apartment. U.S. Const., amend. IV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 6. Second, in People v. McPhee, 256 Ill. App. 3d 102 (1993), this court held that the scope of a search pursuant to a valid warrant cannot extend beyond the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized that are set out in the warrant. McPhee, 256 Ill. App. 3d at 109-10. McPhee makes it clear that even when the police have a valid warrant, the scope of their search is limited. Therefore, following the reasoning of Johnson and McPhee, when the police enter a residence pursuant to exigent circumstances, they can only arrest the people (suspected felons) who created the exigent circumstances (Johnson, 94 Ill. 2d at 159), and the search cannot extend beyond the area the people creating the exigent circumstance are found in. McPhee, 256 Ill. App. 3d at 110. The codefendants who created the exigent circumstances in this case were apprehended in the living room in Tillman’s apartment; therefore, the police search should not have extended beyond Tillman’s living room. McPhee, 256 Ill. App. 3d at 110. In conclusion, although Tillman was suspected of a drug offense, he is no less entitled to fourth amendment protections. The fact that the police were in hot pursuit of other felons whose alleged criminal activities created exigent circumstances did not provide probable cause for the police to arrest Tillman or search his apartment. When the police make a warrantless, nonconsenual entry into a person’s home, Johnson and McPhee make it clear that the police are limited in terms of the areas that they can search and the people they can seize. Johnson, 94 Ill. 2d at 159; McPhee, 256 Ill. App. 3d at 110. Therefore, I must dissent from the majority’s decision because the majority did not give due deference to the trial court’s findings, and Henry, Johnson and McPhee make it clear that the police did not have probable cause to arrest Tillman or search his apartment. Henry, 361 U.S. at 101, 4 L. Ed. 2d at 138, 80 S. Ct. at 170; Johnson, 94 Ill. 2d at 159; McPhee, 256 Ill. App. 3d at 110. For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the decision of the trial court.