People v. Thomas
129 N.E.3d 584
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Markeese Thomas was arrested after officers in plainclothes (in an unmarked car) observed him and another male flee into an unlocked multiunit apartment building; officers then chased them inside.
- Inside the common hallway, Thomas handed a handgun to his friend Turner, then fled upstairs and entered an apartment unit; Turner, locked out, discarded the gun on the stair landing.
- Officer Caribou recovered the loaded .380 on the stair landing, then arrested Thomas outside the apartment after a woman (described as his girlfriend) opened the door; officers learned at the station Thomas lacked a FOID or concealed-carry license.
- Thomas moved to quash arrest and suppress the gun, claiming an unlawful stop/entry and lack of probable cause; the trial court granted suppression, finding no probable cause and that the gun was the fruit of an illegal arrest.
- The State appealed, arguing (1) officers lawfully entered the unlocked common area, (2) Thomas had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common area or (arguably) the unit, (3) officer had probable cause (flight, gun hand-off, exposure), and (4) the gun was abandoned before seizure.
- The appellate court reversed: it found no Fourth Amendment violation in entry/observation of the gun in a common area, concluded the totality of circumstances provided probable cause, and alternatively held the gun was abandoned (thus not protected).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Thomas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was police entry into the unlocked building/common area a Fourth Amendment search? | Entry into an open common area is permitted; no reasonable expectation of privacy. | Entry and observation occurred in the building and implicated privacy/curtilage; warrantless intrusion unlawful. | Held: No search — common area was accessible to the public and not curtilage under these facts. |
| Did officers have reasonable suspicion/probable cause to pursue/detain/arrest after defendants fled? | Flight on seeing police in a high-crime area and conduct (handing off gun) gave reasonable suspicion and, with other facts, probable cause. | Flight alone or seeing a gun does not establish probable cause without verifying licensing; officers lacked probable cause at the time. | Held: Officers had reasonable suspicion to pursue; totality of circumstances (flight, hand-off, exposure, officer experience) supported probable cause. |
| Was the handgun seized admissible, or must it be suppressed as fruit of an unlawful arrest? | Gun was abandoned when thrown on landing; abandoned property is not protected, so seizure lawful and not fruit of an illegal arrest. | Gun was seized as a result of an unconstitutional arrest/entry and thus must be suppressed. | Held: Gun was abandoned before seizure; abandonment removes Fourth Amendment protection, so suppression unwarranted. |
| Did Thomas have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment unit (standing)? | Trial record did not establish Thomas was a resident; State disputed any possessory interest; thus Thomas lacked privacy expectation. | Locking the door and a woman answering suggest residence/possessory interest sufficient for privacy expectation. | Held: Thomas failed to show a reasonable expectation of privacy in the unit; trial court’s contrary finding was against manifest weight. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Smith, 152 Ill. 2d 229 (distinguishes protected curtilage from common areas accessible to the public)
- People v. Bonilla, 2018 IL 122484 (curtilage/threshold protection and limits on warrantless intrusions like dog-sniffs)
- People v. Burns, 2016 IL 118973 (locked building/landing as curtilage; dog-sniff intrusion analyzed under Jardines)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (unprovoked flight in high-crime area may supply reasonable suspicion)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (front-porch intrusion and property-based curtilage analysis)
- People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 (Second Amendment limits on AUUW; gun rights outside the home are subject to regulation)
- Pitman v. People, 211 Ill. 2d 502 (factors for expectation of privacy and standing)