People v. Anderson

2020 IL App (3d) 180036-U

Opinion

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

2020 IL App (3d) 180036-U

Order filed May 13, 2020 ____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of the 9th Judicial Circuit, ) Knox County, Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. 3-18-0036 v. ) Circuit No. 17-CF-12 ) MELISSA ANDERSON, ) Honorable ) Scott S. Shipplett, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE WRIGHT delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Lytton and Justice Carter concurred in the judgment. ____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

¶1 Held: Officers’ search of defendant’s bathroom was outside the scope of community caretaking.

¶2 Defendant, Melissa Anderson, was convicted of unlawful possession of drug

paraphernalia (720 ILCS 600/3.5 (West 2016)) and unlawful possession of a controlled

substance (720 ILCS 570/402 (West 2016)). She appeals the circuit court’s denial of her motion

to suppress evidence seized from the warrantless search of her bathroom. We reverse. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 At the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress, police officers testified that they were

flagged down by a person identifying himself as defendant’s boyfriend, Robert Orris, at

approximately 12:06 a.m. on January 7, 2017. Orris indicated that defendant had not responded

to his telephone calls or text messages. In an attempt to locate defendant, the officers went to her

apartment and repeatedly knocked on the door but defendant did not respond. Next, the officers

spoke to Orris again and also spoke to two of defendant’s friends, Sherry Wallick and Stephanie

Wertz. Wallick told the officers that she saw defendant on the evening of January 6, 2017.

Wallick noted that defendant was a “very deep sleeper.” Wertz told the officers that recently

defendant had been depressed, distant, and withdrawn.

¶5 Following this conversation, the officers returned to defendant’s apartment door. The

officers knocked on the door and called defendant’s cell phone. Again, defendant did not

respond. The officers received permission from their sergeant to use the master key for the

building to enter defendant’s apartment to check her well-being. The officers unlocked the door

and announced, “Abingdon Police Department.” Defendant responded and indicated that she was

in the bathroom taking a bath. The officers asked defendant to exit the bathroom several times

for purposes of checking on her well-being. Defendant refused. The officers explained that if

defendant would open the bathroom door, the officers would enter the bathroom. Defendant

refused. Thereafter, the officers entered the bathroom.

¶6 Upon entry, the officers found defendant standing in the bathroom fully clothed. The

officers informed defendant that emergency medical services (EMS) were on their way to

evaluate her. Defendant became agitated and told the officers to leave. The officers observed that

defendant did not appear to be harmed or was not about to harm herself.

2 ¶7 The officers placed defendant in handcuffs. Defendant testified she did not give the

officers consent to search her apartment or the bathroom.

¶8 According to the officers, it was necessary to enter the bathroom in order to locate

anything that defendant could use to harm herself. While inside the bathroom, without opening

any drawers or cabinets, an officer observed glass tubes, steel wool in a bowl, and a white rock

substance. The substance tested positive for crack cocaine.

¶9 The court denied defendant’s motion to suppress. Defendant was subsequently found

guilty and sentenced to 50 days in jail and two years of conditional discharge.

¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11 Defendant asserts that the circuit court erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence

on two grounds. First, defendant argues the officers lacked the authority to enter her apartment.

Second, defendant claims that the officers improperly seized her person. Third, defendant asserts

that once inside the apartment, the officers lacked the authority to search her bathroom. We

begin with the third issue as it is outcome determinative.

¶ 12 A warrantless search or entry is impermissible unless it fits within a well-established

exception to the warrant requirement. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390 (1978). A

recognized exception to the warrant requirement is the community caretaking or public safety

exception. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 440-41 (1973). In order for a warrantless entry to

qualify for this exception, two considerations must be present. The case law provides that “First,

law enforcement officers must be performing some function other than the investigation of a

crime. *** Second, the search or seizure must be reasonable because it was undertaken to protect

the safety of the general public. [Citation.] ‘Reasonableness, in turn, is measured in objective

terms by examining the totality of the circumstances.’ ” People v. McDonough, 239 Ill. 2d 260,

3 272 (2010) (quoting Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 (1996)). However, once an officer

accomplishes the community caretaking objective, the officer must have justification for any

additional intrusion on fourth amendment rights. People v. Mikrut, 371 Ill. App. 3d 1148, 1153

(2007).

¶ 13 In this case, the first criteria regarding the community caretaking purpose for entering the

apartment was clearly satisfied. See McDonough, 239 Ill. 2d at 272. However, once the officers

secured defendant and relocated her to another room, it then becomes a much closer call to

determine whether the same community caretaking purpose also justified the officers’ decision to

enter the bathroom without defendant’s consent.

¶ 14 The State argues general safety considerations created a duty for the officers to quickly

eliminate any public safety concerns attributable to items defendant might use for purposes of

self-harm or suicide. However, prior to their entry into the bathroom, the officers visually

verified defendant did not appear to be suffering a health emergency and did not appear to have

any physical signs of self-harm.

¶ 15 The officers spoke to persons close to defendant before entering the apartment with the

master key. However, based on these conversations, the officers did not have a reason to

conclude defendant was suicidal or prone to seriously harming herself.

¶ 16 Therefore, while we conclude the trial court correctly found the community caretaking

exception justified the warrantless entry into the apartment, the totality of the circumstances did

not provide the officers with an objectively reasonable basis for a warrantless search of the

bathroom, without defendant’s permission.

¶ 17 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 18 The judgment of the circuit court of Knox County is reversed.

4 ¶ 19 Reversed.