Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

11 Ill. App. 3d 421

296 N.E.2d 862

People v. McCarty

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided May 29, 1973

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1973-05-29

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1973-05-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1998 · most notably Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), 138 Ill. 2d 377 - People v. Williams (1990)

24 state decisions

130197319801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Defendant, Robert P. McCarty was found guHty of unlawful possession of more than 2.5 but less than 10 grams of cannabis after a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Clay County.

¶2 Defendant contends on appeal that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence. We agree.

¶3 Defendant was walking in the vicinity of the Flora police station and near a van truck belonging to a person recently arrested for possession of marijuana. He was notified by the police and since they suspected that he had some connection with the arrested owner of the van, they called him over to the station to talk to him and search him. On searching they found a small clear plastic bag in his coat pocket which contained marijuana. There was nothing else in this pocket except this plastic bag. The police had no warrant and they had no reasonable grounds to think the defendant had committed any crime. Defendant was not carrying a weapon.

¶4 The State’s Attorney seeks to justify the search under the stop and frisk provisions of the statute. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, secs. 107—14 and 108—1.01.) However, even if we assume that this is a proper case to frisk for weapons, the soft plastic bag inside the coat pocket was not a weapon, nor could it reasonably have been mistaken for a weapon. The officer upon determining by a pat down or feel of the coat, that the pocket did. not contain a weapon, had no right under the circumstances to remove anything from the pocket.

¶5 The trial judge indicated some doubt about the search but apparently thought he was bound by the incorrect ruling of another judge on a motion to suppress made before trial. He was not bound by the prior ruling. On the contrary he had a duty to grant defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence when it was shown to have been obtained by an illegal search.

¶6 Since the only evidence of defendant’s gmlt was obtained by an illegal search, the judgment cannot stand.

¶7 Judgment reversed and defendant discharged.

/11/illapp3d/421 · .json · Public domain