People v. Wall
2016 IL App (5th) 140596
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 16, 2011, Officer Jeff Gill (SEIG/Carbondale police) went to Robert Wall’s home without a warrant based on a confidential tip that Wall was growing marijuana.
- Gill called Wall at work, falsely told him he was an Illinois State Police trooper and that someone had tried to break into Wall’s home, and told Wall to return immediately.
- When Wall arrived he encountered multiple armed plainclothes officers on his property; Gill then identified himself as a Carbondale officer and told Wall police had information he was growing marijuana.
- Wall asked if Gill had a warrant and initially refused consent; Gill allegedly threatened that Wall would go to jail (or at least not be free that day) if he did not consent and promised he would not go to jail if he signed consent.
- Wall signed a prefilled written consent form (he testified he only glanced at it); officers searched, found cannabis and plants, arrested Wall, who later gave a statement.
- Wall moved to suppress, arguing consent was involuntary due to deception and coercion; the trial court denied suppression, Wall was convicted after a stipulated bench trial, and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wall’s consent to search was voluntary | State: consent was voluntary; prefilled form and officers’ testimony support voluntariness | Wall: consent was induced by false representations, intimidation, and a veiled threat/promises, so it was involuntary | Consent was involuntary; suppression should have been granted |
| Whether officers’ deceit vitiated consent | State: no exigency shown but consent nonetheless voluntary | Wall: officer used deliberate misstatements (false trooper/burglary story) to get him home and obtain consent | Court found officer’s deception and coercion fatally undermined voluntariness |
| Whether signature on written consent is dispositive | State: written consent weighs for voluntariness | Wall: signature is undermined because he only glanced and form was prefilled; coercion can invalidate written consent | Court: written form not dispositive where coercion/deception exists; consent invalid |
| Remedy for invalid consent | State: evidence and statements admissible if consent valid | Wall: items and statements must be suppressed if consent involuntary | Court suppressed evidence and statements; reversed conviction and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (warrant generally required; privacy/search framework)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (coercion, trickery, or promises vitiate voluntariness of waivers/statements)
- People v. Casazza, 144 Ill. 2d 414 (1991) (police misrepresentations as to authority can vitiate consent to search)
- People v. Kratovil, 351 Ill. App. 3d 1023 (2004) (consent must be voluntary; totality of circumstances governs)
- People v. Cardenas, 237 Ill. App. 3d 584 (1992) (initial refusal to consent and coerced signatures are important in voluntariness analysis)
- People v. Graf, 265 Ill. App. 3d 746 (1994) (groundless threats presenting choice of consent or consequences can vitiate consent)
- People v. Martin, 102 Ill. 2d 412 (1984) (voluntariness is question of fact; confessions obtained by trick or promise inadmissible)