Court Opinion

ID: 9884486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:59:25.152552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:38.599082
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Underwood, dissenting: The question as to whether illegally seized evidence should be suppressed at all is one the merits of which had been so debatable that only about one-half of the States (see 8 Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd ed., par. 2183, P- 8) had chosen to exclude it prior to Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081, and only California, so far as my research has indicated, heretofore has totally abolished the requirement that one seeking suppression must first establish violation of his constitutional rights. The reasons underlying the exclusionary rule and “standing” requirements are well set forth in the majority opinion and will not be repeated here. That opinion also recognizes the consistently maintained rule in this State that only infringement of the accused’s own right to be free of unconstitutional searches and seizures enables him to complain, and that unless he shows a violation of his constitutional guaranty he may not suppress evidence even though some other persons’ constitutional rights may have been violated by the seizure. Such showing, heretofore required, was customarily made by alleging a proprietary or possessory interest in the premises searched or property seized. The sole exception to this rule related to those instances where the admission by the accused of the required interest would be sufficient to convict him of the crime with which he was charged. E.g. People v. Mayo, 19 Ill.2d 136. While not so stated, the inevitable effect of the majority opinion will be elimination of the rule by expanding the exception. The purport of the holding is clear: If admission of an interest in the premises searched or property seized would be self-incriminatory, no such interest need be alleged. Of course, evidence sought to be suppressed is always incriminatory or the defendant would not seek its suppression. Justification for this holding is sought in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S. Ct. 725, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697, but it is to me clear that the Supreme Court there regarded the case before them as one in which the possession of the narcotics, per se would be sufficient to convict, for the second paragraph of the opinion states: “Both statutory provisions under which petitioner was prosecuted permit conviction upon proof of the defendant’s possession of narcotics.” That the court had no intention of abolishing the “standing” requirement is manifest in its language (U.S. p. 261): “Ordinarily, then, it is entirely proper to require of one who seeks to challenge the legality of a search as the basis for suppressing relevant evidence that he allege, and if the allegation be disputed that he establish, that he himself was the victim of an invasion of privacy.” That court then held it unnecessary, as this court did in Mayo, for the defendant to allege or establish a possessory interest. This is the construction heretofore given Jones by us and in United States v. Konigsberg, (3rd cir.) 336 F.2d 844, cert. den. 379 U.S. 933, 85 S. Ct. 334, 13 L. Ed. 2d 344. But this is vastly different from abolishing the rule completely which is accomplished by eliminating the “standing” requirement here. Jones does not require doing so. We expressly held that it did not in People v. Kelley, 23 Ill.2d 193, cert. den. 370 U.S. 928, 8 L. Ed. 2d 507, 82 S. Ct. 1570, and there required a defendant charged with armed robbery to allege a possessory interest in a watch, found in defendant’s pocket, before he could raise the question of an illegal search even though the watch was one taken from the victim of the robbery and its presence upon defendant’s person very shortly thereafter was even more persuasive evidence of guilt than the possession here. We there considered Jones to be inapplicable because the watch was only evidence of defendant’s guilt and its possession alone insufficient to convict of armed robbery. This is precisely the situation here, for proof that defendants were in possession of the stolen property does not convict them of burglary without additional proof of the essential entering with intent to commit a felony. Possession of the property taken is not even an essential element of burglary — proof of such possession is simply some evidence of guilt. The rule requiring a defendant to establish the manner in which Ms constitutional rights have been violated before permitting him to challenge the validity of a search and seizure has been and is now largely followed in both Federal and State courts ( see 78 A.L.R. 2d 246) except for those instances, earlier noted, where such showing would suffice to convict him. It has been, until now, the law of this State. That Jones compels no change was decided by us in Kelley, and we have twice since approved the Kelley rule in People v. Pitts, 26 Ill.2d 395, 398-9, and People v. French, 33 Ill.2d 146, 149-50, decided only last September. The facts of this case disclose no such unconscionable conduct by law enforcement officers as would justify reconsideration of these decisions. The language of the California District Court of Appeals (People v. Colonna, 140 Cal. App. 2d 705, 295 P.2d 490), quoted at length in the majority opinion, first appeared in People v. Martin, 45 Cal. 2d 755, 290 P.2d 855, and both of these cases had beep decided some 5 and 6 . years, respectively, prior to our decisions in Kelley and the cases reaffirming it. I would think the California cases hardly persuasive of a need for change now. There is, in my judgment, no compelling reason presented for the substantial departure from existing law accomplished by the majority opinion, nor do I deem it desirable to eliminate what I consider to be a salutary requirement conducive to the preservation of an orderly society. Accordingly, I would affirm the appellate court.