People v. Burton
409 Ill. App. 3d 321
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Burton was convicted after a bench trial of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, unlawful possession of firearm ammunition by a felon, possession of a firearm without a FOID card, and being an armed habitual criminal.
- A suppression motion challenged the warrantless search of Burton’s coat pocket; the search was based on Garland’s consent to search the apartment.
- Garland, Burton’s girlfriend, signed a consent-to-search form for the apartment; officers were informed there might be drugs and a gun in the closet and attic of the closet area.
- Burton, present in the home but not on the lease, claimed he did not consent to sign the form; he told officers to search but would not sign because he was not on the lease.
- The gun was found inside a large men’s coat in the closet; police also found drug paraphernalia in the attic area of the closet.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion, concluding Garland had authority to consent to the search of the apartment, but Burton had not expressly consented; the court did not make explicit findings on Burton’s conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garland had authority to consent to search Burton's coat pocket | Garland had common authority over the apartment and closet. | Garland lacked authority to permit a search of Burton’s closed coat pocket. | Yes; Garland had apparent common authority to consent to the search, including Burton’s coat. |
| Whether Burton expressly refused consent to the search | Burton’s conduct showed acquiescence to the search via ordinary consent. | Burton expressly refused consent by not signing the form and asserting he would not sign. | Burton did not expressly refuse; the search was valid under Randolph's framework because his refusal was not explicit. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (common authority over premises permits third-party consent)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope of a search defined by its expressed object)
- People v. Stacey, 58 Ill.2d 83 (1974) (adopts Matlock's common-authority test in Illinois)
- People v. Bull, 185 Ill.2d 179 (1998) (mutual use and access to shared property supports third-party authority)
- People v. James, 163 Ill.2d 302 (1994) (driver's authority to consent does not extend to a purse)
- People v. Miller, 346 Ill.App.3d 972 (2004) (lacked authority to search a zipped duffel bag in a locked locker)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (express refusal by co-occupant cannot be overridden by another's consent)
- People v. Sweborg, 293 Ill.App.3d 298 (1997) (no implied consent from silence when asked to sign a form)