People v. Grant
Annotate this Case
In 2008, Chicago police in an unmarked car saw the defendant yelling “dro, dro” to a passing vehicle, in front of a Chicago Housing Authority building, in an area known for marijuana sales. The arresting officer testified said that “dro, dro” is slang for the sale of cannabis, and case law has recognized that this refers to a higher quality, or hydroponic, marijuana. The defendant was arrested for violation of a municipal ordinance forbidding the solicitation of unlawful business on a public way. At the scene, plastic bags containing what appeared to be cannabis were found on his person, and, at the police station, plastic bags of what later tested positive for cocaine were also found in his clothing. All took place without a warrant. The circuit court denied a motion to suppress; the appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court, reversed finding that there was probable cause to arrest. The court noted that the police testimony was unrebutted; facts known to police at the time of the arrest provided reasonable grounds to believe defendant was committing a criminal offense.
Court Description:
This Cook County defendant received a three-year sentence for Class 4 possession of cocaine after a stipulated bench trial. The appellate court reversed the conviction, finding lack of probable cause for his initial arrest, but, in this decision, the supreme court reversed the appellate court and upheld the conviction.
In 2008, Chicago police in an unmarked car saw the defendant yelling “dro, dro” to a passing vehicle. This was in front of a Chicago Housing Authority building, in an area known for marijuana sales. The arresting officer who testified said that, based on his experience, “dro, dro” is slang for the sale of cannabis, and case law has recognized that this refers to a higher quality, or hydroponic, marijuana. The defendant was initially arrested for violation of a Chicago municipal ordinance forbidding the solicitation of unlawful business on a public way. At the scene, plastic bags containing what appeared to be cannabis were found on his person, and, at the police station, plastic bags of what later tested positive for cocaine were also found in his clothing. All of this took place without a warrant, and the defendant argued lack of probable cause to arrest him. The circuit court had denied Grant’s motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, and the supreme court, in this decision, agreed with that, finding that there was probable cause to arrest. The supreme court noted that what the police officer testified to was unrebutted. The court said that the absence of some of the traditional indicia of drug activity—officers did not see anything in the defendant’s hands or observe any transactions or see him flee—did not call for a different result. The court said that the facts known to police at the time of the arrest provided reasonable grounds to believe he was committing a criminal offense.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.