Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Harmon; Failure to make a futile objection; People v. Crews; Search & seizure; Per se unreasonableness of warrantless searches; People v. Beuschlein; Consent & exigent circumstances exceptions; People v. Davis; People v. Mahdi; People v. Chowdhury

Holding that the police did not obtain the jacket in question in violation of defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights and thus, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a futile objection to its admission into evidence, the court affirmed his unarmed robbery conviction. The case arose from a purse snatching. Both the victim and a man who chased the suspect testified that the suspect was wearing a brown leather jacket and had entered a multi-unit house. After defendant was detained, police conducted a protective sweep of the apartment he had been in and found a brown leather jacket in a closet. They conducted the sweep because he told them “that his cousin had stopped by the apartment and left after defendant would not open the door.” He argued on appeal that the police obtained the jacket in an unconstitutional search and thus, defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to its admission. The court held that his statements about “his cousin provided the police a specific reason to be concerned that someone else was present in the apartment who posed a potential threat to the officers and the downstairs residents. This was especially true given [a police witness’s] testimony that he did not believe defendant’s story and” thus, did not trust his claim that his cousin had left. “The quick and limited protective sweep of the apartment in this case was reasonable on these facts.” Further, the police witness testified that, while “he believed that the officers had detained the robbery suspect because defendant matched the suspect’s description, a protective sweep was necessary to confirm that no other potential suspect was hiding in the apartment and to prevent an escape. Because preventing the escape of a suspect constitutes an exigent circumstance and an exception to the warrant requirement, the officers’ search of the apartment to prevent the escape of another potential suspect was reasonable under the circumstances.” Further, the later search during which the jacket was collected was conducted with the apartment resident’s consent. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to properly obtained evidence.