People v. Manzo, 2018 IL 122761 (December). Episode 573 (Duration 10:14)

This one will be controversial: Illinois Supreme Court holds their was no nexus to the house justifying the search warrant.

Gist

3 buys from a guy is used for a search warrant into the house the guy came from. None of the buys occurred at the house. Defendant was not the target, but it was his house. 

3 Buys

An undercover had purchased from the cousin 3 times over 20 days. 2 purchases were near the vicinity of the home. 

Purchase #1 – Police purchase $150 of cocaine from Defendant’s girlfriend’s cousin. Deal goes down at a supermarket. Police see the target getting out of a black Ford Explorer. Defendant drives away in the same black Ford Explorer. The Explorer came back registered to Defendant’s girlfriend listed at residing in Defendant’s house.

Purchase #2 – Police arrange for the purchase of $300 of cocaine. This time the sale occurs at a liquor store.

Purchase #3 – Arrangement for purchase of $150 worth of cocaine is made. This time police are watching the house. They see the cousin leave the house and walk to the liquor store. Then the cousin called the officer to change locations, and had him walk to a grocery store where the deal went down.

The Cousin

Not sure if police knew the target was Defendant’s girlfriend’s cousin. They only know he is “associated” with her, and they know where she lives. Defendant is not known to police at this time.

Police never established where he lived.

Police never established how long he was at the house before he left for the last deal.

Police never established where he was before the first and second deals.

Police never established if he really had access to larger amounts.

The Search

Police find 348 grams of cocaine, a handgun, ammunition, a digital scale, a box of plastic bags, over $9000 in United States currency, and proof of residency for both defendant and the target.

The cocaine, the handgun, the ammunition, the digital scale, and the box of plastic bags were found in a safe inside the master bedroom closet.

The cash was found in the pockets of two jackets in the master bedroom closet. Defendant’s proof of residency was found in a bedroom drawer and elsewhere in the house. None of the paperwork concerning the cousin’s residency indicated that house was his address.

The Verdict

Defendant was found not guilty of the drug charges but was convicted of the gun charge.

Issue

Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, arguing that the officers lacked probable cause to search his home. The motion argued that, prior to the execution of the search warrant, no corroborating information was sought or found by the responding police officers to verify that the target ever resided at the residence.

The four corners of the search warrant completely lacked sufficient probable cause to conduct the search that led to defendant’s arrest and to the seizure of certain items of purported evidence.

Probable Cause

Probable cause exists in a particular case when the totality of the facts and circumstances within the affiant’s knowledge at the time the warrant is applied for “was sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the law was violated and evidence of it is on the premises to be searched.” People v. Griffin, 178 Ill. 2d 65, 77 (1997). It is the probability of criminal activity, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that is the standard for determining whether probable cause is present. Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d at 236.

Whether the necessary probability exists is governed by commonsense considerat...