People v. Ross
92 N.E.3d 999
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Law enforcement executed a search warrant on April 13, 2016, at a tan, two-story house at the northeast corner of N. Greely and E. Chestnut in Monticello; a blue barn-shaped building sat north of the house on the same parcel.
- The warrant described the place to be searched as 817 N. Greely Street and recited distinctive physical details (tan two-story house on east side of N. Greely with a detached barn to the north), but the house actually displayed the street number 1002 E. Chestnut.
- Officers smelled cannabis near the property based on neighbor reports and deputies’ observations; Sergeant Russell prepared the affidavit and warrant based on those reports and online records that listed the parcel under 817 N. Greely.
- During execution, officers entered through a rear (north) door; Russell, stationed at the front, observed the number 1002 only after entry had begun.
- Defendants Ross and Schriefer moved to suppress, arguing the warrant misidentified the address and lacked probable cause; the trial court found the warrant ambiguous and suppressed the evidence. The State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schriefer had standing to challenge the search | The State argued Schriefer did not present evidence of a reasonable expectation of privacy and thus lacked standing | Schriefer asserted ownership interests (through corporate ownership) and that the State had charged him so standing was implicit | Trial court declined to resolve standing when ruling; appellate court found the trial court did not abuse discretion in denying State’s belated standing challenge on reconsideration |
| Whether the warrant’s incorrect street address invalidated the search | The State argued the warrant’s physical description (color, two-story, barn north of house, corner location) identified the correct premises despite the address mistake | Defendants argued the address error made the warrant ambiguous and officers should not have executed or continued the search after seeing 1002 | Court held the warrant was sufficiently particular despite the address error and reversed suppression |
| Whether officers exercised improper discretion in choosing which structure to search | The State: officers had no doubt which building was target; they did not exercise forbidden discretion | Defendants: officers or supervising officer effectively chose between premises after ambiguity | Court found no exercise of improper discretion and no evidence of confusion by executing officers |
| Whether continuing the search after discovering the wrong number required suppression | The State: once execution began it was reasonable to continue because occupants alerted and evidence could be moved/destroyed | Defendants: seeing 1002 should have halted the search and prompted a new warrant | Court applied reasonableness standard (citing Luckett/Garrison) and found continued search reasonable under the circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Watson, 26 Ill.2d 203 (1962) (warrant need only describe premises with reasonable certainty; technical errors not fatal where description identifies the place)
- People v. Powless, 199 Ill. App.3d 952 (1990) (incorrect street name may be a technical defect where other identifying factors prevent confusion)
- People v. Luckett, 273 Ill. App.3d 1023 (1995) (continuing a search after discovering a description error can be reasonable where retreat would jeopardize the investigation)
- People v. Urbina, 393 Ill. App.3d 1074 (2009) (warrant ambiguity that leaves executing officers in doubt and leads to discretionary guidance requires suppression)
- People v. Burmeister, 313 Ill. App.3d 152 (2000) (technical inaccuracies in a warrant will not invalidate it if officers can identify the premises with reasonable effort)
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987) (reasonableness test for searches continued in good faith where officers reasonably but mistakenly believed their warrant described a single target)