IL: Def arrested in bedroom w/o PC at 5:20 am should have all evidence from arrest suppressed

Defendant was arrested without probable cause for murder at 5:20 am by officers standing in his bedroom who handcuffed him and took him away. The evidence derived from the arrest from the room should have been suppressed. People v. Gutierrez, 2016 IL App (3d) 130619, 2016 Ill. App. LEXIS 829 (Dec. 7, 2016):

[*P63] We find that a reasonable innocent person in defendant’s position would not have felt free to leave. The facts indicate that the defendant was under arrest: (1) the encounter occurred at defendant’s residence in the early hours of the morning; (2) the police awoke defendant from his sleep in his bedroom; (3) the number of police officers at the residence; (4) the officers searched defendant’s bedroom; (5) defendant was not told he was free to leave; and (6) defendant was handcuffed when transported in a police car to the Chicago police station. See Melock, 149 Ill. 2d at 437 (“The relevant inquiry in determining whether a suspect has been arrested is whether, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would conclude that he was not free to leave.”). While none of the foregoing facts standing alone would establish that defendant was under arrest, the cumulative effect of these facts is that a reasonable innocent person in defendant’s position would not have felt free to leave. See Washington, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 24 (“No factor is dispositive and courts consider all of the circumstances surrounding the detention in each case.”).

. . .

[*P66] The State does not dispute that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest defendant for his involvement in the death of Barrios at the time he was handcuffed and placed in the Chicago officers’ police car. Our review of the record confirms that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest defendant at that time. “Probable cause to arrest exists where the facts and circumstances known to the police officer at the time of the arrest are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense had been committed and that the offense was committed by the person arrested.” People v. Sims, 192 Ill. 2d 592, 614 (2000). Plutz, Kivisto, and Siegel testified that they went to [**35] defendant’s residence in the early morning hours of October 29 because they were looking for Escutia. All three testified that they did not discuss defendant prior to leaving for Chicago. Plutz testified that the first time he heard defendant’s name was at the residence in Chicago. Plutz believed the officers wanted to talk to defendant because he was found sleeping with Escutia. Kivisto testified that the officers decided at the Chicago residence that they wanted to talk to defendant as well as Escutia. Plutz testified that the officers had no reason to arrest defendant at the residence. Similarly, Siegel testified that when the officers arrived at the residence, defendant was not a suspect and the officers had no probable cause to arrest him. Thus, we find that the arrest was improper.

[*P67] The trial court found that the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant because he was on parole and was occupying a room that contained ammunition. A police officer need not subjectively rely on the correct offense for an arrest to be valid and the officer’s subjective reliance on the wrong offense “does not foreclose the State from later justifying the arrest by proving probable cause on another basis.” People v. Mourecek, 208 Ill. App. 3d 87, 94 (1991). But see People v. James, 255 Ill. App. 3d 516, 524-25 (1993) (“However, the law is clear that a court, judging the propriety of an arrest after the fact, cannot validate an unconstitutional arrest on the theory that probable cause existed for another offense which was not contemplated by the police at the time of the arrest.”).