Balancing Privacy and Law Enforcement: The Legal Aspects of the Freeport House Search

The Illinois State Police Stateline Area Narcotics Team arrested a woman on allegations of having cannabis and firearms in her home after they searched her apartment in Freeport on Wednesday, May 23^rd. The Stateline area narcotics unit is a specialized team that operates in five Illinois counties and two Wisconsin counties. In this case, the search occurred in Stephenson County, Illinois.

The woman is being charged with possession of cannabis and possession with the intent to deliver cannabis, along with two misdemeanor counts related to not having the required firearm owner’s identification card, also known as a FOID card.

It is unclear what led to the search. Under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of a warrantless search and seizure, the police could only have searched her home if they had a warrant or under certain exceptions to the warrant requirement.  

Lawful Search and Seizure

A lawful search and seizure could have been conducted by the police if they had the required warrant. In the present case, because the woman’s home was searched by the state police narcotics unit, they may indeed have had the proper permissions in the form of a valid warrant.  

The Stateline narcotics team works with local police enforcement, as well as Illinois National Guard Counterdrug Analysts and other agencies to reduce crime through intelligence-led policing, which focuses enforcement efforts on felony-level drug distribution and trafficking, according to a February news release by the Illinois State Police.

They focus mainly on gun and drug investigations, including investigating gang activity. The unit would likely have been deployed as part of a wider investigation, so it is highly probable they would have had a warrant. Otherwise, there would have had to have been exceptions to the warrant requirement.

Exceptions to Warrant Requirements

The exceptions to the warrant requirement include consent, exigent circumstances, stop and frisk (under certain circumstances), the plain view doctrine, hot pursuit, search incident to arrest, the automobile exception, and administrative searches.  Out of these, the ones that may have applied in the present case are consent, exigent circumstances, the plain view doctrine, hot pursuit, and search incident to arrest.

The woman may have consented to a search; the situation may have called for an urgent search such as with the exigent circumstances exception, like if there was a possibility she could have gotten rid of the evidence right then and there had they not entered; the cannabis and firearms may have been out in plain view for the police to easily have seen even before the search; the woman may have already been pursued by the police and fled from a public place into her home, which would allow the police to follow her into her home without a warrant; and she may have been already being placed under arrest when the search occurred incident to her arrest.    

Possession Charges

The Illinois Cannabis Control Act states that “except as otherwise provided in the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act and the Industrial Hemp Act, it is unlawful for any person knowingly to possess cannabis.” It further delineates the amounts of cannabis that qualify as which type of offense.  

For example, a person who knowingly possesses more than 100 grams but not more than 500 grams of any substance containing cannabis is guilty of a Class 4 felony. In the case at hand, the woman was allegedly found to be in possession of a little less than half a pound of cannabis. A pound is equal to 453.6 grams. So, the woman was allegedly in possession of around 226.8 grams of cannabis. Therefore, because she was allegedly in possession of more than 100 grams but not more than 500 grams of cannabis, if convicted she would be guilty of a Class 4 felony.  

Felonies are divided into five categories in Illinois. These categories are Class 1 through Class 4, and Class X, with Class X being the most severe and Class 4 being the least severe. The Cannabis Control Act also specifies that if someone is guilty of possessing the previously mentioned amount of cannabis of between 100 grams and 500 grams, and this is a subsequent offense, it gets upgraded to a Class 3 felony. If the Freeport woman has a previous conviction for possessing this amount of cannabis, she will face a more severe charge this time around.  

Even though a Class 4 felony is the least severe, it may still result in hefty fines and even potentially a jail sentence ranging from 1 year to 3 years. A Class 3 felony may result in a similar fine as a Class 4 (which is $25,000), but the jail sentence range would be a minimum of 2 years to a maximum of 5 years. This does not take into account if extended terms are imposed.  

She was also charged with possession with the intent to deliver cannabis. The Illinois Cannabis Control Act further states that it is unlawful for any person knowingly to manufacture cannabis, deliver it, or possess it with intent to deliver. In the case of possession with intent to deliver, if the woman possessed more than 30 grams but not more than 500 grams of any substance containing cannabis with the intent to deliver it, she would be guilty of a Class 3 felony for which a fine not to exceed $50,000 may be imposed. This is obviously a potentially very hefty fine, so if the state is able to prove that she had the requisite intent to deliver cannabis, she will be facing a serious financial penalty.

The Pretrial Fairness Act

The Freeport woman was processed by the police and released under the Pretrial Fairness Act, according to local news sources. The Pretrial Fairness Act was introduced in the Illinois General Assembly in 2021. It amended the Criminal Code of 2012 by changing provisions related to bail bonds. It also amended the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 by abolishing the requirement of posting monetary bail and that “it is presumed that a defendant is entitled to release on personal recognizance on the condition that the defendant attend all required court proceedings and the defendant does not commit any criminal offense and complies with all terms of pretrial release, including, but not limited to, orders of protection.”  

It further provides that “additional conditions of release shall be set only when it is determined that they are necessary to assure the defendant's appearance in court, assure the defendant does not commit any criminal offense and complies with all conditions of pretrial release. Provides that detention only shall be imposed when it is determined that the defendant poses a danger to a specific, identifiable person or persons, or has a high likelihood of willful flight.”

In the present case, considering the woman was released after processing, the police must have determined that she was not a flight risk nor posed any danger to any specific people. It would be reasonable to assume she fully complied with the arrest. It is also possible, however, that additional conditions were set to ensure her compliance.  

Either way, you cut it, the woman is now facing quite serious legal troubles. The burden of proof will be on the state to demonstrate her guilt, and she will have the opportunity to defend herself from these allegations.  

‍