People v. Garcia, 2017 IL App (1st) 142141

Edwin Garcia (juvenile at arrest) was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm after plainclothes officers went to his home to arrest him as a named suspect in an armed robbery; officers made a warrantless entry.
Family witnesses testified officers entered after asking for Edwin through a slightly opened door and did not identify themselves or show a warrant; officers testified they were invited in by a male family member and had probable cause.
Officers handcuffed Edwin in the living room, escorted him outside, and performed a custodial search before placing him in the squad car; a .32 revolver was recovered from his pocket outside the home.
Defendant moved to quash arrest and suppress the gun as fruit of an illegal warrantless entry; the trial court found a Payton violation but denied suppression because the gun was recovered outside the home.
After a bench trial (testimony from suppression hearing admitted), the court found Garcia guilty and sentenced him to two years' intensive probation.
On appeal Garcia argued (1) the gun was the product of exploiting the illegal entry and should be suppressed, and (2) alternatively, his counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach an officer about consent to enter. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Garcia)	Held
Whether evidence (gun) obtained after a warrantless entry must be suppressed as fruit of an illegal in-home arrest	Officers had probable cause to arrest; Harris and Illinois precedent allow admission of evidence obtained outside the home despite an unlawful in-home arrest	The gun was obtained by exploiting the illegal warrantless entry and thus must be excluded under the exclusionary rule/Wong Sun analysis	Court held suppression not required: because officers had probable cause and the gun was recovered outside the home, Harris and state precedents control, so admission was proper
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not impeaching an officer about alleged lack of consent to enter	State: trial court made no finding that officers had consent; issue is hypothetical and not reviewable	Garcia: counsel should have impeached Officer Brouder with his report to show no consent, which could have changed suppression outcome	Court declined to reach ineffective-assistance claim as advisory/hypothetical because the trial court did not find consent and parties agreed no such finding was made

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless in-home routine felony arrests violate the Fourth Amendment absent consent or exigency)
New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990) (statements or other evidence obtained outside the home need not be suppressed solely because the arrest inside the home violated Payton when police had probable cause)
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (exclusionary-rule analysis focuses on whether evidence was obtained by exploitation of illegality)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree and attenuation principles govern suppression analysis)
People v. Alexander, 212 Ill. App. 3d 1091 (1991) (applying Harris to admit evidence obtained outside the home after an in-home arrest with probable cause)
People v. Houston, 240 Ill. App. 3d 754 (1992) (lineup/identification obtained outside the home admissible where officers had probable cause despite an in-home arrest)