People v. Ross
92 N.E.3d 999
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Police investigated a tan, two-story house and adjacent blue barn on a single lot at the northeast corner of N. Greely and E. Chestnut in Monticello; the barn had historically been associated with the 817 N. Greely address and the house displayed the number 1002 on its front.
- Officers received neighbor reports of suspicious activity and detected a cannabis odor while driving by; Sergeant Russell prepared an affidavit and a warrant identifying the target as "817 N. Greely" and describing "a single family, tan, two-story dwelling" with "a detached barn to the north."
- The warrant was executed at the rear (north) door of the tan house; during execution officers discovered cannabis and grow materials in the house.
- Defendants Ross and Schriefer moved to suppress, arguing the warrant named a different street address than the house searched and thus was defective; the trial court suppressed evidence despite finding probable cause.
- The State appealed arguing (1) the address error was a technical defect because the warrant otherwise described the premises with sufficient particularity, and (2) good-faith execution by officers justified denying suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Schriefer) to challenge the search | State: Schriefer failed to prove a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore lacked standing; suppression should be vacated | Schriefer: He has ownership/control interest and thus standing; State waived the issue by not raising it at suppression hearing | Trial court properly exercised discretion in denying State's late-standing challenge; appellate court found no abuse of discretion in that procedural ruling |
| Particularity/address discrepancy in warrant and suppression of evidence | State: Incorrect street number was a technical error; warrant otherwise identified the house (color, location, detached barn) so officers could identify place; suppression was improper | Defendants: Address discrepancy created ambiguity; warrant was invalid and officers should have halted when they saw 1002 on the house | Appellate court: Warrant was sufficiently particular (aside from street-number error), officers were not confused or exercising discretion, and suppression was erroneous; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. People, 26 Ill. 2d 203 (Illinois) (warrant adequate if description enables officer to locate premises with reasonable certainty)
- Powless v. People, 199 Ill. App. 3d 952 (identical or similar holding that incorrect address can be technical defect where other identifying factors remove doubt)
- Luckett v. People, 273 Ill. App. 3d 1023 (officers may reasonably continue a search when error is discovered mid-execution if retreat would jeopardize the mission)
- People v. Urbina, 393 Ill. App. 3d 1074 (warrant ambiguity that created doubt for executing officers required suppression)