People v. Horton
2017 IL App (1st) 142019
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Aug. 11, 2011, Officers Hummons and Meredith in an unmarked car observed Markell Horton standing near a Chicago row house; Hummons saw a “chrome metal object” in Horton’s waistband, thought it might be a handgun, and told his partner to stop.
- Horton ran into the house; officers picked up keys found on the porch, called backup, unlocked the front door about 5–6 minutes later, and followed inside.
- Upstairs Hummons found Horton crouched beside a bed; Meredith recovered a chrome semiautomatic handgun from under the mattress. Horton denied ownership; a housemate testified the gun belonged to another occupant.
- Horton was charged with armed habitual criminal (possession after prior felonies), convicted by a jury, and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.
- Horton moved to quash arrest and suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful, warrantless entry and arrest; the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court ordered supplemental briefing after Aguilar and Burns invalidated parts of Illinois’ AUUW statute.
- The appellate majority reversed the denial of the suppression motion, holding the officers lacked probable cause or sufficient Terry suspicion to justify the warrantless entry and seizure because probable cause was premised on a statute later declared void ab initio.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause / lawfulness of entry and seizure | Officers had probable cause based on observing object appearing to be a handgun and Horton’s flight; hot pursuit and exigency justified entry and seizure | Hummons lacked probable cause; observation was only a "metallic object" and later statute relied on (AUUW) was declared facially unconstitutional, so entry and seizure were unlawful | Reversed: No probable cause for arrest/entry; probable-cause basis depended on AUUW portions later void ab initio, so seizure suppressed |
| Applicability of Terry stop | Officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop (seeing what appeared to be a gun; Horton fled) | The officer’s descriptions were inconsistent; initial testimony said merely a "metal object," not a gun; flight alone insufficient without articulable facts | Held: Terry stop not justified—officer’s evolving testimony and mere hunch did not supply specific, articulable facts |
| Good-faith / exclusionary-rule exception | State: evidence admissible under good-faith exception to exclusionary rule (officers reasonably relied on then-valid statute) | Defendant: exclusionary rule should apply; Illinois does not recognize broad good-faith exception where statute is void ab initio | Held: Illinois precedent bars applying federal good-faith exception; void-ab-initio doctrine requires exclusion of evidence obtained under facially invalid statute |
| Admission of gun-ownership/trace evidence | State: such evidence irrelevant; trial court properly excluded un-certified ATF tracing record for lack of foundation | Horton: admitted tracing record would show gun not stolen and belonged to another resident, undermining possession inference | Held: Ruling on suppression dispositive; appellate court reversed on suppression and did not reach remaining claims (but trial court had excluded uncertified tracing record for lack of foundation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes investigatory stop based on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized individual right to possess firearms for self-defense)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporated Heller right against the states)
- People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 (Ill. 2013) (invalidated portions of Illinois AUUW statute as facially unconstitutional)
- People v. Burns, 2015 IL 117387 (Ill. 2015) (clarified Aguilar: AUUW provisions void ab initio)
- People v. Krueger, 175 Ill. 2d 60 (1996) (Illinois rejected applying federal good-faith exception to state exclusionary rule)
- People v. Carrera, 203 Ill. 2d 1 (2002) (arrest under statute later declared unconstitutional is unlawful; exclusionary rule applies)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless entry to make an arrest in a home generally prohibited)
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) (hot pursuit into dwelling may justify warrantless entry)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary-rule purpose and limits discussed)