People v. Reed
2025 IL App (5th) 240074-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2025Background
- Curtis L. Reed was arrested at a residence in Cahokia, Illinois during the execution of an arrest warrant for Brian Ratliff, following a perimeter setup and knock-and-announce entry by law enforcement.
- During a protective sweep, officers discovered drugs and firearms in plain view and concealed in the residence, including in Reed's bedroom.
- Officers also searched Reed's vehicle, parked in the driveway, and found additional contraband, but questions arose about whether consent to this search was ever validly given.
- The homeowner, Marina Gayden, later signed a consent to search the house after a search had already occurred; the voluntariness of her consent was challenged.
- The trial court suppressed all evidence from the protective sweep and vehicle search, finding both the sweep and the consent search invalid; the State appealed, arguing exigent circumstances and the plain-view doctrine permitted the searches and seizures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of Protective Sweep | Officers had specific articulable facts (danger & possible threats in residence, gang ties, recent violence) | Officers lacked individualized, articulable facts for a sweep; protocol alone is insufficient | Valid sweep: facts (history, gang activity, recent violence) justified immediately post-arrest sweep |
| Scope of Evidence Suppression | All evidence (including plain view) should be admitted due to plain view and/or consent | Search exceeded scope—moving mattresses, extended sweep without warrant/consent; suppress all evidence | Suppression vacated for items in plain view; suppression affirmed for evidence under mattress |
| Voluntariness of Homeowner Consent | Homeowner's consent cured any Fourth Amendment issues, and was voluntary | Consent was coerced (implied threat of losing home, post-search, not freely given) | Consent involuntary; did not validate prior search or evidence seized as a result |
| Search of Defendant’s Vehicle | Vehicle was in curtilage, firearm in plain view, and alleged consent to search | Consent not given, vehicle locked, no exigent circumstances; plain view did not justify access | Search invalid: lack of consent, lack of exigent circumstances, plain view alone insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (defines protective sweep and its permissible scope in arrest situations)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (framework for assessing voluntariness of consent to search)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrant requirement for entry into homes, exceptions for exigent circumstances)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (limitations and rationale of the plain-view doctrine)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (requirements for lawful seizure under the plain-view doctrine)
- Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (affirming the general warrant requirement for searches)