Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; July 29, 1977; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Defendants Robert Ford and Michael Simpson were convicted of theft of property valued over $150 and appealed their convictions. Ford received a two-year probation sentence with conditions including a $1,000 fine, while Simpson was sentenced to one to three years in prison. They contended that their confessions should have been suppressed due to an illegal arrest. The case stemmed from a theft incident on October 17, 1975, where Ford, Simpson, and a third party, Jack Koontz, were accused of stealing soybeans.
The trial court denied their motions to suppress confessions, which the defendants claimed were involuntary due to their LSD use. During the trial, defense counsel renewed the motion, questioning the legality of the arrest based on the sheriff's probable cause. Testimony revealed that Sheriff John Bliven, who arrested the defendants, was unaware that the soybeans were stolen at the time of their arrest but had received prior notifications about suspicious boys attempting to sell soybeans. He identified Ford and Simpson based on their descriptions and the context of the theft reports. Following their arrest, Simpson confessed to the crime and provided details on the location of the stolen soybeans.
Sheriff Bliven arrived at the scene of a theft on October 17, 1975, where Phil Marshall discovered stolen beans but had not reported the theft to law enforcement. Sheriff Bliven obtained written confessions from defendants Simpson at 9:20 a.m., Ford at 10:40 a.m., and Koontz at 2:30 p.m. After hearing testimonies from Mr. Marshall about lost soybeans, an investigator about the sale of stolen beans by the defendants, and Sheriff Bliven regarding the confessions, the jury found the defendants guilty of theft valued at $254.13. Ford was sentenced to two years of probation with a $1,000 fine, while Simpson received one to three years in prison. Koontz, also convicted, sought to sever his case and dismiss his appeal.
On appeal, Ford and Simpson argued their confessions should be suppressed due to an illegal arrest, claiming the State did not prove the reliability of the bulletins used by Sheriff Bliven. Under the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure, defendants can move to suppress evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure. The burden to prove unlawfulness lies with the defendant, but once a prima facie case is established, the State must counter that evidence. Illinois law allows police to make an arrest with reasonable grounds to believe an offense has occurred. The Illinois Supreme Court defines probable cause as facts sufficient for reasonable caution in believing an offense has been committed. Reasonable cause is less stringent than evidence needed for a conviction and can be based on inadmissible evidence. The determination of probable cause relies on the totality of circumstances known to officers at the time of arrest.
In assessing probable cause, courts rely on practical, everyday considerations rather than strict legal technicalities. This principle emphasizes that law enforcement must often make quick decisions based on the information at hand to prevent crime. In this case, Sheriff Bliven received reports that three boys in a stolen pickup truck were attempting to sell soybeans in Havana, with specific descriptions of the boys and their activities. Upon observing defendants Ford and Simpson, who matched descriptions from the reports, Sheriff Bliven determined he had probable cause to make an arrest. The defendants argued that the information received constituted mere rumors and lacked a reasonable foundation for probable cause. However, the court noted that the totality of circumstances known to the sheriff, including corroborating his observations with the radio information, supported the probable cause determination. The court also highlighted that probable cause can be established through hearsay evidence. The defendants’ reliance on the necessity for the dispatcher’s probable cause was deemed misplaced, as the information received was factual, rather than conclusory. Ultimately, the court upheld the sheriff's actions, affirming the admission of the defendants' confessions into evidence and the judgments of the Circuit Court.
