Court Opinion

ID: 9738774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:02:32.419111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:08.362544
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT, specially concurring: I concur in the opinion and reasoning of the majority; however, I believe defendant’s reliance on People v. Ouellette (1978), 57 Ill. App. 3d 249, 373 N.E.2d 114, requires a few added comments. The court today applies the rule of reasonableness in judging the legality of a search’s execution. Such a rule was established in Ker v. California (1963), 374 U.S. 23, 10 L. Ed. 2d 726, 83 S. Ct. 1623, and has been adopted by the Illinois courts. (People v. Boykin (1978), 65 Ill. App. 3d 738, 382 N.E.2d 1369.) As the majority opinion correctly observes, the “unreasonableness in the manner of executing a search warrant may require the suppression of evidence seized ” * Further, the majority holds that “no rigid rule, establishing what is a reasonable amount of time for officers to wait, is applicable. The facts and circumstances of each case must be examined in making a determination as to reasonableness.” I believe Ouellette adopts the same rule. In that decision the court reflected that the “dignity and privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment demands a certain propriety on the part of policemen, even after they have been authorized to invade an individual’s privacy by a valid search warrant.” (People v. Ouellette (1978), 57 Ill. App. 3d 249, 253, 373 N.E.2d 114, 117.) Propriety is exhibited by the police if they execute their search in a reasonable manner in light of the facts and circumstances of each case. The announcement of authority and the length of any period allowed for voluntary surrender are merely two of many factors to be weighed in ascertaining the reasonableness of a search. People v. Wolgemuth (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 154, 370 N.E.2d 1067; People v. Boykin. Defendant points to language in Ouellette which provides that “No matter how great the probable cause is to believe a man guilty of a crime or in possession of the fruits of a crime, he must be given a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily surrender his privacy.” (Emphasis supplied.) Defendant construes this statement to mean that the police must, in all cases, await a suspect’s voluntary submission to authority. Such a construction is not necessary to the holding in Ouellette nor is it required by the express language of the Ouellette opinion when considered in its entirety. Rather, the opportunity for voluntary submission must be reasonable in light of numerous facts and circumstances; and, “the announcement of authority and purpose is merely one of the many factors to be weighed in ascertaining if the entry to * * search is ° °- reasonable.” (People v. Ouellette.) The court in Ouellette finds it necessary to discuss whether, in weighing the factors before it, sufficient circumstances existed to cause an unannounced forced entry to be reasonable. We there concluded that under the facts and circumstances such an entry was unreasonable. The majority herein astutely observes just one of many factors that distinguishes Ouellette from the case at bar, i.e, Ouellette involved “forcible entries by police without any announcements at all.” If for no other reason, defendant’s reliance on Ouellette is misplaced. Quite often in these times search warrants are issued wherein the object of the warrant is readily disposable contraband. The Fourth Amendment does not mandate, nor does this court require, that law enforcement officials should be powerless to search for and seize such contraband. Nevertheless, the Fourth Amendment does mandate that individual dignity and privacy must in every case be protected from infringement by improper police conduct. I believe today’s decision correctly states the reasonableness standard which should govern police conduct in executing searches. BARRY, P. J., concurs.