People v. Manzo

Citation: 2017 IL App (3d) 150264Docket: 3-15-0264

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; March 1, 2018; Illinois; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jorge Manzo, Jr. appealed the denial of his motion to quash a search warrant and suppress evidence related to his residence in Joliet, where police suspected drug activity linked to Ruben Casillas. Officer Jeremy Harrison initiated the warrant application after conducting three undercover purchases of cocaine from Casillas between May 20 and June 8, 2009. Each transaction occurred at different locations, with Casillas seen leaving the black Ford Explorer registered to Leticia Hernandez, an associate of Casillas, who lived at Manzo's residence. The warrant application indicated that drug field tests confirmed the presence of cocaine, and Harrison provided evidence of probable cause based on his interactions with Casillas and his knowledge of the associations between Casillas and Hernandez. The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, concluding there was sufficient basis for the warrant.

A search warrant was issued by a warrant judge on the same day a complaint was filed, leading to a police search of a residence where cocaine and a handgun were discovered in the master bedroom closet. The defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence, arguing that the complaint lacked probable cause, as it did not demonstrate any illegal activities at the residence or establish that Casillas, a person of interest, lived there. The circuit court, after extensive hearings, upheld the warrant, concluding that there was probable cause to believe contraband would be found.

During the jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon but was acquitted of the drug charge. He received a sentence of 36 months’ probation. On appeal, the defendant contended that the circuit court erred in affirming the warrant's probable cause, arguing that the warrant failed to connect Casillas’s illegal activities to his residence. However, the appellate court determined that the warrant judge had a substantial basis for establishing probable cause, emphasizing that their role was to assess whether the warrant judge had adequately concluded that evidence of criminal activity could be found at the specified location, not to replace the judge’s judgment. The standard for probable cause is based on the likelihood of evidence presence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court's decision.

Probable cause for a search warrant requires a clear connection between a criminal offense, the items to be seized, and the location to be searched. Courts can make reasonable inferences to establish this nexus if direct information is lacking. In this case, Harrison's affidavit indicated that Casillas, who was under surveillance, left the defendant's residence to engage in a drug transaction. The affidavit also noted that Casillas used a vehicle registered to the defendant's residence, linking his drug activities to that location. The lack of evidence showing that Casillas resided at the residence was deemed irrelevant; the essential consideration was whether there was a fair probability of finding evidence of his activities there. The warrant judge had sufficient basis to believe that a nexus existed, allowing for the issuance of the search warrant.

The defendant's reliance on *People v. Lenyoun* was rejected, as it was factually distinct. In *Lenyoun*, the warrant lacked evidence connecting the defendant's criminal activity to his residence, with no observations of contraband being taken in or out of the home. The court upheld the motion to quash the search warrant, concluding that the complaint did not demonstrate a sufficient nexus to justify the search. Thus, the current case provided a stronger basis for probable cause than *Lenyoun*.

The case presents a significant difference from Lenyoun, where only one transaction was involved. In this instance, Harrison made three undercover purchases from Casillas, with officers observing Casillas leave his residence to sell cocaine to Harrison without any intervening stops. Additionally, Casillas used a vehicle registered to the residence for a separate drug transaction. The circuit court affirmed the judgment, finding that there was a substantial basis for probable cause regarding Casillas's illegal activities being linked to the residence.

Justice O’Brien dissents, arguing that the majority incorrectly concluded the warrant was valid. O’Brien points out that the complaint contained only two references to the residence: one indicating Casillas's use of a vehicle registered there and another noting he left the residence before a transaction. Crucially, there were no allegations that Casillas lived at or stored narcotics in the residence, nor that any drug transactions occurred there. The transactions spanned 19 days, and the best the complaint established was that Casillas was an acquaintance of the residence's owners, lacking a sufficient nexus for probable cause.

O’Brien contends that the majority's dismissal of Lenyoun is misguided, as Lenyoun actually supports the argument against establishing probable cause. In Lenyoun, the warrant application included more substantial connections to the residence, such as the defendant's frequent departures from it and the address being listed on his driver’s license. In contrast, the current complaint provides even less information linking Casillas to the residence, as his driver’s license did not list the address, and there was minimal observation of him leaving the residence. O’Brien concludes that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was inadequate and would hold that the circuit court erred in denying the motion to quash the warrant and suppress evidence.