IL: PC existed ten days after a crime to seek the weapon involved in the crime

There was probable cause for a search warrant for defendant’s house for a firearm involved in a crime ten days after the crime. Firearms are possessions usually kept. People v. Rodriguez, 2018 IL App (1st) 141379-B, 2018 Ill. App. LEXIS 331 (June 5, 2018):

[*P49] We are satisfied that Detective Bean’s complaint established probable cause to search Sebastian’s home. The police sought not only the murder weapon and a list of intended victims but a specific article of clothing—a dark-colored or gray hooded sweatshirt—identified by three eyewitnesses as something Sebastian was wearing at the time of the shooting. Although we certainly agree that probable cause to arrest does not always equate to probable cause to search the arrestee’s home, it is reasonable to infer, absent evidence to the contrary, that a person will generally keep possessions, including possessions that link that person to the crime, in his or her home. See, e.g., People v. Hammers, 35 Ill. App. 3d 498, 504, 341 N.E.2d 471 (1976) (“The complaint was sufficient to show probable cause that [the] defendant shot and killed the victim, and, if so, it was reasonable for the issuing judge to infer that the weapon used might be at the defendant’s home nine days later.”); People v. Weinger, 63 Ill. App. 3d 171, 175, 379 N.E.2d 810, 19 Ill. Dec. 938 (1978) (concluding that it was a “logical supposition” for the defendant to have clothing and jewelry purportedly worn by him during the murders he was charged with, as well as the murder weapon, in his apartment). Here, it was entirely reasonable to infer that Sebastian, a 15-year-old boy with no vehicle or other place to store such items, would keep a gun, clothing, and a list of potential targets at his residence.
[*P50] In the cases relied on by Sebastian, circumstances were present that undermined the common, justified assumption that possessions are generally kept in the home. For example, Sebastian relies on People v. McCoy, 135 Ill. App. 3d 1059, 482 N.E.2d 200, 90 Ill. Dec. 493 (1985), but the defendant in McCoy, who was charged with possessing a firearm without a firearm owner’s identification card, was an adult who was recently seen by a coworker with several guns in his van. Id. at 1062. Under these circumstances, where the defendant had other places available to him to keep the guns at issue—i.e., at his place of employment or in his van—more was needed to say that a fair probability existed that the guns would be found in the defendant’s home. Id. at 1066.