People v. Manzo
91 N.E.3d 894
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- On June 11, 2009, Officer Jeremy Harrison applied for a warrant to search Ruben Casillas, a black Ford Explorer, and the residence at 701 W. Marion St. in Joliet (defendant Manzo’s residence). Harrison averred he purchased cocaine from Casillas on three occasions.
- Transactions: May 20 (Casillas met Harrison at a supermarket after walking away from the black Explorer); May 28 (transaction at Stang Kelly Liquors); June 8 (Casillas left 701 W. Marion while under surveillance, walked to a store, and sold cocaine to Harrison).
- The black Ford Explorer was registered to Leticia Hernandez, who lived at 701 W. Marion. Harrison positively identified Casillas from a driver’s license photo; field tests of bought substances indicated cocaine.
- The warrant was issued the same day; the search recovered cocaine and a handgun from the master bedroom closet. Manzo was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon.
- Manzo moved to quash the warrant and suppress evidence, arguing no nexus connected Casillas’s drug activity to the residence. The trial court denied the motion; a jury convicted Manzo of being a felon in possession of a weapon (acquitted on the drug charge). Manzo appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Manzo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant affidavit established probable cause to search 701 W. Marion | Affidavit supplied a fair probability contraband/evidence of Casillas’s drug activity would be at the residence (surveillance showed Casillas leaving the residence before a sale; vehicle registered there used in another sale). | Affidavit lacked a nexus: no evidence Casillas lived at, stored drugs in, or conducted sales from the residence; affidavit was "bare bones." | Warrant judge had a substantial basis for probable cause; denial of motion to quash was affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sutherland, 223 Ill. 2d 187 (warrant-review standard: appellate court ensures warrant judge had substantial basis for probable cause)
- People v. Hickey, 178 Ill. 2d 256 (probable cause requires fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place)
- People v. Moser, 356 Ill. App. 3d 900 (definition of probable cause as facts warranting a person of reasonable caution to believe an offense occurred and evidence is at place to be searched)
- People v. Stewart, 104 Ill. 2d 463 (probable cause standard not proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Beck, 306 Ill. App. 3d 172 (nexus requirement between crime, items to be seized, and place to be searched; reasonable inferences may supply nexus)
- People v. McCoy, 135 Ill. App. 3d 1059 (reasonable inferences may create nexus where direct information is lacking)
- People v. Hancock, 301 Ill. App. 3d 786 (preference accorded warrants resolves doubtful or marginal cases)
- People v. Lenyoun, 402 Ill. App. 3d 787 (search warrant invalid where affidavit lacked nexus tying defendant’s criminal activity to residence)