Find Legal Information

Docket No. 95783-Agenda 2-March 2004.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. SHANE
PITMAN, Appellant.

Opinion filed June 17, 2004.
 

JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Shane Pitman, was indicted in the circuit court ofMacoupin County on one count of unlawful manufacture of cannabis, inthat he knowingly manufactured more than 500 grams but not more than2,000 grams of a substance containing cannabis. 720 ILCS 550/5(e)(West 1998). Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence and quasharrest. Defendant moved to suppress, inter alia, marijuana plants seizedfollowing a search of a farm occupied by defendant. At the close of ahearing, the circuit court granted defendant's motion to suppress. TheState brought an interlocutory appeal to the appellate court pursuant toour Rule 604(a)(1) (188 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1)). The appellate court, withone justice dissenting, reversed the circuit court's suppression order andremanded the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings. No.4-01-0620 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

We allowed defendant's petition for leave to appeal (177 Ill. 2d R.315(a)). We now reverse the judgment of the appellate court, affirm thesuppression order of the circuit court, and remand the cause to the circuitcourt for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

The following witnesses testified at the suppression hearing: AlanBondy, Sherry White, Dale Reels, Ron Lewis, Amy Curtis, and MaryPitman. The hearing adduced the following pertinent evidence.

Mary Pitman owned a 93-acre farm in Macoupin County, east of theVillage of Shipman. Pitman is defendant's mother and Sherry White'saunt; White is defendant's cousin. The farm contained two residences, afarmhouse and a trailer. In July 1999, White lived in the farmhouse;defendant, his girlfriend Amy Curtis, and their two children lived in thetrailer.

On Friday, July 16, or Saturday, July 17, 1999, White drove behinda person she believed to be a police officer. She followed him to his home.Unbeknownst to White, the officer was Alan Bondy, the chief of police forthe Village of Shipman. White knocked on his front door and they spokeon his porch. According to White:

"I knocked on the door and told him I had a question to askhim, because I was living at a farm and keeping the upkeep, andsomeone else that was living on the same farm, but down theroad, was growing marijuana, and I was wanting to know if Iwould get into any trouble, or if the person that owned the landwould get their farm taken away, and if there was a couple thatlived there, and if they would get their kids taken away."

According to White, Bondy responded:

"He said, 'It wouldn't be the Pitman farm out there, would it?'I didn't say nothing, and I could tell he could tell by the look onmy face. But *** I said, 'Well, if you know if it's the Pitmanfarm, why don't you go out there and bust him?' He said heknew Shane Pitman had been growing marijuana for a while, andthey was after the bigger guys, that they weren't going to botherhim."

At the end of their conversation, according to White: "he told me that Iwouldn't get in no trouble, I more or less just took it that that would be it.*** I turned around and left and went home *** [b]ack to the farm."Their entire conversation lasted under a minute.

White testified that she did not describe the location of the plants.She did not give Bondy permission to come onto the premises to search.She did not ask Bondy to have defendant arrested and the plantsremoved. Between that day and July 20, White was never contacted byanyone from the Illinois State Police. No law enforcement officer everasked her anything about the plants. She never gave anyone permission tocome onto the premises.

Alan Bondy testified as follows. White knocked on his front door andhe answered. According to Bondy: "She introduced herself as SherryWhite, said she was renting a farm from her Aunt Mary out east of town."Further: "She was concerned over cannabis being grown on the propertyand was curious whether she would get in trouble or the owner of theproperty, being her Aunt Mary, would be subject to lose the propertybecause of the cannabis being grown." Bondy asked White if defendantwas growing the marijuana, and White responded "yes." White askedBondy that if he knew that defendant was growing the marijuana, why didBondy not go out to the farm and arrest defendant? Bondy told White thatthe farm was located outside of his jurisdiction.

Further, according to Bondy, White gave him details as to where themarijuana was growing on the premises:

"She said that she had found 13 Dixie cups with starter plantsin them, she had found a patch of plants growing behind the barn,behind the house that she lived in. The barn was behind thehouse that she stayed in, and it was growing behind the barn, andthere was another patch across the creek that was growing, onthe other side of a hill or somewhere."

White informed Bondy that "Shane was cultivating, he was taking care ofthe plants, and that's what made her nervous." However, White wassomewhat relieved when Bondy offered his opinion that the farm was notin jeopardy because White came forward with this information, andbecause Mary Pitman had no knowledge of defendant's activity.

Bondy told White that he would have to relay the information to theproper authorities. He told White that "the Drug Task Force would be outthere and do an investigation, and they would contact her." The entireconversation lasted "[n]ot more than 5 to 10 minutes."

According to Bondy, the extent of his involvement was that he tooka statement from White and relayed that information to the Illinois StatePolice: "I was given information. I relayed the information on. I jotted theinformation down on a piece of notebook paper, so that when theinformation was relayed on I got it correct, and that was inadvertentlythrown away." Bondy telephoned the Task Force and left a message. Thefollowing week, Dale Reels returned Bondy's call, and Bondy gave Reelsthe information. Bondy told Reels that White "had came by the house, shehad expressed concern over the plants that were being grown on theproperty and where they were being grown." Bondy told Reels that White"wanted them [the marijuana plants] removed, and she wanted Shanearrested."

Dale Reels was a patrolman with the Carlinville police department,assigned to the South Central Illinois Drug Task Force, which was a unitof the Illinois State Police. At approximately 1 p.m. on Monday July, 19,1999, Officer Reels telephoned Bondy. According to Reels, Bondy toldhim: "She [White] went to him [Bondy] because she was concerned forthe welfare of the farm and concerned for her own welfare, because hercousin, Shane Pitman, was growing cannabis on the farm." Reels hadknown defendant for a few months because defendant had been aconfidential informant for the Drug Task Force. The next day, Tuesday,July 20, 1999, Officer Reels drove to the Pitman farm. During histestimony, Reels was asked whether there was "ample time for you to goobtain a search warrant for the premises on the basis that there is cannabisgrowing there," to which he answered, "There would have been time,yes."

Officer Reels arrived at the Pitman farm at approximately 2:25 p.m.With him was Macoupin County deputy sheriff Ron Lewis, also assignedto the Drug Task Force. Neither Reels nor Lewis had spoken with Whiteprior to that time. They went to the premises to interview White.

The 93-acre farm was located along a road that ran north and south.The farm was on the west side of the road; the farmhouse faced the roadto the east. A driveway off of the road was located on the north side ofthe house. On one side of the driveway was a sign that read "PrivateProperty" and on the other side a sign that read "No Trespassing."Defendant's trailer was located "at least a football field's length" north ofthe house. The trailer had its own driveway off of the road. Reels andLewis had previously been to defendant's trailer when defendant had beenan informant.

The testimony conflicts at this point. According to Reels and Lewis,they both exited the automobile. They went to the front door of the house,knocked, and called, "Anybody home?" Hearing no answer, they went tothe back door and knocked. Upon hearing no answer, they walkedtoward the barn located behind the house.

However, Amy Curtis, defendant's girlfriend, testified that on theafternoon of July 20, 1999, she was driving past the farm when she sawan automobile parked in the driveway. From previous encounters, sherecognized the automobile as an unmarked police car. She pulled into thedriveway behind the police car and exited her car. She saw one man onthe front porch at the door and another sitting in the police car. Accordingto Curtis: "I asked him [the man at the door] 'Can I help you?' And hesaid 'I am looking for Sherry White.' " Curtis responded that White wasat work, but would return home between 3 and 3:30 p.m. Curtis thenreturned to her car, backed out of the driveway, and drove up the roadto her trailer. She saw the police car back out of the driveway and driveaway from the house.

Reels and Lewis were each asked whether a woman drove to thehouse and asked them why they were there. Each responded that he couldnot remember. Also, neither Reels nor Lewis could remember seeing the"Private Property" and "No Trespassing" signs posted on the driveway.

According to Reels and Lewis, after they received no answer at theback door of the house, they walked away from the house and toward thebarn. That building was one of several outbuildings west of the house. Thebarn was located approximately 50 yards directly behind the house. Thebarn had large doors on the east and west sides. The south side of thebarn did not have a wall; rather, it had a canopy off of it that covered afeedlot.

The east doors of the barn were open. Reels and Lewis entered theeast side of the barn. Once inside, they first saw rolls of carpet and loosestraw. The officers next observed marijuana plants growing in the feedloton the south side of the barn. Some of the plants were planted in five-gallon buckets and some were planted in the ground. These mature plantswere at least four feet tall; many were taller than six feet. The plants wereinterspersed with thick horseweeds that were six to eight feet tall. Inaddition to these mature plants, Reels and Lewis observed small marijuanaplants in Dixie cups, known as starter plants, located outside along thesouthwest side of the barn.

Reels and Lewis testified that they did not see the marijuana plantsfrom any road, from the driveway, or even at the open doorway on theeast side of the barn. Rather, they could see the plants only after theyentered the barn.

Reels and Lewis returned to their car and left the farm; they were onthe premises for no longer than five minutes. Approximately two hourslater, they returned with a third officer, Joe Konnecker. The three officersset up surveillance at several points around the barn. At approximately 5p.m., defendant appeared and entered the barn. The officers then tookdefendant into custody and seized the marijuana plants.

According to Reels and Lewis, after defendant was taken intocustody, White made her presence known to the officers, invited them intothe farmhouse, and made a handwritten statement. In her statement, Whitestated that defendant had been planting many marijuana plants around thebarn and at various locations on the farm. She further stated: "[I] went intown to ask Shipman Cop what I should do about all pot plants." Shestated: "[I] was wondering if Aunt Mary would get her farm taken awayor if Amy would get kids taken away or if I would get in any troublebecause I lived on farm," and "I was going to pull every plant just to keepthe rest of us out of trouble." However, White testified that she wrote thestatement only after the officers threatened her with a felony charge.

The officers left defendant at the farm. On December 3, 1999,defendant was indicted on one count of unlawful manufacture of cannabis(720 ILCS 550/5(e) (West 1998)). Defendant was arrested on January18, 2000.

Defendant moved to quash his arrest and to suppress, inter alia, theseized marijuana plants. At the close of the suppression hearing, the trialcourt granted defendant's motion. The circuit court found that White neverconsented to the officers' entry onto the property. Accordingly, the circuitcourt concluded that "the search was improper because it was done aspart of a trespass." The circuit court suppressed the marijuana plants.

On appeal, the appellate court, with one justice dissenting, reversedthe circuit court's suppression order. The appellate court held thatdefendant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the barn areabecause: (1) the area was outside of the curtilage of defendant's trailer andthe farmhouse, and (2) the barn was abandoned. Accordingly, theappellate court concluded that the officers' entry into the barn did notviolate defendant's constitutional rights. In light of that conclusion, theappellate court did not address whether White consented to the search.No. 4-01-0620 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).Justice Cook dissented, stating:

"I respectfully dissent and would affirm the decision of the trialcourt. Defendant, who resided on the farm with the owner'spermission, clearly had standing to object to a search. I woulddefer to the trial court's factual decision that the area in which thesearch occurred was one in which defendant had a legitimateexpectation of privacy. It also seems clear that Sheri [sic] Whitenever consented to the July 20 entry onto the property."

The appellate court remanded the cause to the circuit court for furtherproceedings. We allowed defendant's petition for leave to appeal (177 Ill.2d R. 315(a)). Additional pertinent facts will be discussed in the contextof the issues raised on appeal.

ANALYSIS

Defendant contends that the appellate court erred in reversing thecircuit court's order granting his motion to suppress. In reviewing a circuitcourt's ruling on a motion to suppress, mixed questions of law and fact arepresented. Findings of historical fact made by the circuit court will beupheld on review unless such findings are against the manifest weight of theevidence. This deferential standard of review is grounded in the reality thatthe circuit court is in a superior position to determine and weigh thecredibility of the witnesses, observe the witnesses' demeanor, and resolveconflicts in their testimony. People v. Gherna, 203 Ill. 2d 165, 175(2003); People v. Sorenson, 196 Ill. 2d 425, 430-31 (2001). However,a reviewing court remains free to undertake its own assessment of thefacts in relation to the issues presented and may draw its own conclusionswhen deciding what relief should be granted. Gherna, 203 Ill. 2d at 175-76, quoting People v. Crane, 195 Ill. 2d 42, 51 (2001). Accordingly, wereview de novo the ultimate question of whether the evidence should besuppressed. Sorenson, 196 Ill. 2d at 431.

This standard of review, based on Ornelas v. United States, 517U.S. 690, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911, 116 S. Ct. 1657 (1996), supplants whathad been the traditional standard of review for suppression orders. SeeSorenson, 196 Ill. 2d at 430-31. This court formerly stated that a trialcourt's ruling on a motion to suppress would not be disturbed on appealunless that ruling was manifestly erroneous, but de novo review wasappropriate where neither the facts nor the credibility of witnesses wasquestioned. See, e.g., People v. Mitchell, 165 Ill. 2d 211, 230 (1995);People v. Foskey, 136 Ill. 2d 66, 76 (1990). We note for both benchand bar that in our recent opinions in People v. Morris, 209 Ill. 2d 137,153-54 (2004), and People v. Ledesma, 206 Ill. 2d 571, 576 (2003),our reference to Mitchell was in error and does not signal a return by thiscourt to the previous standard of review. Therefore, to the extent that thediscussion of the standard of review in Morris and in Ledesma areinconsistent with this opinion, those portions of Morris and Ledesma areoverruled. We reiterate today our adherence to the standard of review setforth in Ornelas and adopted by Sorenson.

The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution protects the"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, andeffects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const., amend.IV; see also Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 213, 4 L. Ed. 2d1669, 1675, 80 S. Ct. 1437, 1442 (1960) (observing that the fourthamendment applies to state officials through the fourteenth amendment).Similarly, article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution provides that the"people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papersand other possessions against unreasonable searches [and] seizures." Ill.Const. 1970, art. I,