From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
People v. Gales
Illinois Court of Appeals
618 N.E.2d 847 (1993)
At 1:00 p.m. one afternoon, a confidential informant reported to Officer Shaefer that earlier that day, Bernard Gales (defendant) gave the informant marijuana at one house and then Gales sold the informant marijuana at another house across the street. Police learned that Michael Thornton owned the first house and that Gales lived in an apartment in the second house. Based upon the informant’s tip, Shaefer obtained search warrants for both houses, and police executed the warrants at 9:30 p.m. that night. Police seized a gun and cocaine from Gales’s apartment, and Gales was charged with possession with intent to deliver cocaine and possession of a weapon by a felon. Gales filed a motion for a Franks hearing, a hearing in which a defendant may attack the truthfulness of a search warrant. At the Franks hearing, Shaefer testified to the above information. Gales also presented additional witnesses, including an employer who testified that Gales attended a training from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on the day in question and Thornton, who testified that he and Gales were not friends and that Gales had no access to his house. Gales requested production of the confidential informant during the Franks hearing. The trial court interviewed the informant in camera without any attorneys or a stenographer present. The trial court determined that the informant provided Shaefer with the information in Schaefer’s application for a search warrant and that the informant corroborated Shaefer’s testimony. The trial court did not disclose the informant’s identity and did not specify what time the informant claimed to purchase marijuana from Gales. The trial court denied Gales’s motion to quash the warrant, finding that Gales failed to prove Shaefer made any false statements in the warrant affidavit. A jury convicted Gales of possession with intent to deliver cocaine and possession of a weapon by a felon. Gales appealed, asserting that he had a right to know the informant’s identity.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Murray, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.