2012 IL App (1st) 120016
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- State charged Krinitsky with multiple cannabis and MDMA/hydrocodone offenses; circuit court granted motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence; State appealed; court analyzes Fourth Amendment applicability and waiver; State argues consent/consent once removed doctrine; court finds no exigent circumstances and rejects consent once removed; waiver of the argument for not raising in circuit court; decision affirms circuit court’s suppression rulings.
- Defendant argued entry was illegal without warrant/consent and no exigent circumstances; informant Tardona arranged the delivery and entered defendant's apartment; police later entered with no warrant or consent; evidence seized from apartment suppressed.
- Court held no exigent circumstances justified entry; waiver issue grounds to decline new argument; consent once removed doctrine does not apply given facts; decline to adopt doctrine but not necessary to adopt.
- Court concluded suppression proper; State waived first argument; consent once removed not satisfied; opinion notes no opinion on adopting doctrine.
- Result: Judgment affirmed; circuit court’s order to suppress affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State waived the Fourth Amendment argument. | Krinitsky invited informant, waiver applies. | Waiver should not salvage merit; entry unlawful. | Waiver applied; argument preserved? affirmed suppression. |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry. | Police could act with implied consent due to imminent drug sale. | No exigent circumstances; time to obtain warrant. | No exigent circumstances; entry unlawful; suppression affirmed. |
| Whether the consent once removed doctrine applies. | Doctrine applies; informant consent suffices. | Doctrine not satisfied; does not apply to confidential informants. | Doctrine does not apply to these facts. |
| Whether the confidential informant established probable cause and immediately summoned officers. | Tardona’s actions established probable cause to arrest. | No clear probable cause documented; insufficient immediacy. | Probable cause not established; doctrine not satisfied. |
| What is the proper scope of appellate review in suppression rulings. | de novo review of ultimate ruling; factual findings reviewed for clear error. | Same; standard supports suppression here. | De novo review for suppression ruling; factual findings reviewed for clear error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. Supreme Court 1980) (privacy of the home; entry requires warrant absent consent or exigent circumstances)
- People v. McNeal, 175 Ill. 2d 335 (2000) (exigent circumstances burden on State; warrant requirement protect home privacy)
- People v. Wimbley, 314 Ill. App. 3d 18 (2000) (factors for reasonableness of warrantless entry; not exhaustive)
- United States v. Paul, 808 F.2d 645 (7th Cir. 1986) (consent by defendant to enter with confidential informant; probable arrest impact)
- United States v. Akinsanya, 53 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 1995) (consent once removed: informant establishes probable cause and summons help)
- United States v. Ogbuh, 982 F.2d 1000 (6th Cir. 1993) (informant brings contraband; consent once removed discussion not adopted)