However, before invoking the plain error exception, "`it is appropriate to consider whether error occurred at all,' because without error, there can be no plain error." People v. Smith, 372 Ill. App. 3d 179, 181 (2007), quoting People v. Wade, 131 Ill. 2d 370, 376 (1989). Defendant contends that the warrant was unconstitutional because it was not supported by probable cause and because it failed to describe the places to be searched with particularity.

[Citation.]" People v. Smith, 372 Ill. App. 3d 179, 183-84 (2007) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 289 F.3d 1034, 1038-39 (7th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds). See Smith, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 182.

¶ 28 Defendant contends that the complaint for a search warrant in this case failed to establish probable cause because it was based on "uncorroborated information" from "anonymous, narcotics-using informants" with no history of providing the police with reliable information. ¶ 29 Where, as here, the affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant relies on information supplied by an informant or informants, and their credibility is an issue on appeal, the totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry generally focuses on the informant's reliability, veracity, and basis of knowledge. People v. Smith, 372 Ill. App. 3d 179, 183 (2007), citing United States v. Johnson, 289 F.3d 1034, 1038-39 (7th Cir. 2002). Several factors inform the analysis, including: (1) the degree of police corroboration of the informant's information; (2) the extent to which the information is based on the informant's personal observations; (3) the amount of detail provided by the informant; (4) the interval of time between the events reported by the informant and the warrant application; and (5) whether the informant personally appeared before the warrant-issuing judge to present the affidavit or testimony.

¶ 58 The issuing magistrate's task " ‘is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’ " People v. Smith , 372 Ill. App. 3d 179, 184, 310 Ill.Dec. 178, 865 N.E.2d 502 (2007) (quoting Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) ); see also People v. McCarty , 223 Ill. 2d 109, 153, 306 Ill.Dec. 570, 858 N.E.2d 15 (2006). Whether the necessary

This court has previously held that "the informant's presence and ability to be questioned were 'themselves indicia of reliability because they eliminate some of the ambiguity that accompanies an unknown hearsay declarant.'" People v. Smith, 372 Ill. App. 3d 179, 183-84 (2007), quoting United States v. Johnson, 289 F.3d 1034, 1040 (7th Cir. 2002). Defendant points out, however, that there is no indication that the judge questioned the confidential informant at the probable cause hearing, and, as stated in Smith, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 184, "the informant's appearance before the magistrate [is] only one factor" in analyzing his reliability.

However, we will first consider whether any error occurred, because “ without error, there can be no plain error.” People v. Smith, 372 Ill.App.3d 179, 181, 310 Ill.Dec. 178, 865 N.E.2d 502 (2007). ¶ 11 The question of whether the State was required to provide notice to defendant that he was being charged with the Class 2 UUW by a felon offense is a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.

First, we will consider if a clear and obvious error occurred because "without error, there can be no plain error." People v. Smith, 372 Ill. App. 3d 179, 181 (2007). ¶ 33 We will only reverse a trial court's decision whether to admit evidence if the trial court abused its discretion.

People v. Bryant, 389 Ill. App. 3d 500, 520 (2009). We may not substitute our judgment for that of the issuing judge (People v. Smith, 372 Ill. App. 3d 179, 182 (2007)) and we are required to review the supporting affidavit in a common-sense manner (McCarty, 223 Ill. 2d at 153-54). ¶ 6 Upon review of the affidavit, we find that it provided the issuing judge with sufficient information to establish a fair probability that contraband would be found in the back bedroom of the apartment on the third floor at the building located at 4911 West Adams.

First, we will consider whether error occurred because "without error, there can be no plain error." People v. Smith, 372 Ill. App. 3d 179, 181 (2007). ¶ 56 "The right to a trial by jury is a fundamental right guaranteed by the federal Constitution [citations] and the Illinois Constitution of 1970 [citation]."

was actually questioned. People v. Smith, 372 Ill. App. 3d 179, 183-84 (2007); see also People v. McCarty, 223 Ill. 2d 109, 142, 153 (2006) (although not at issue, the supreme court considered the totality of the circumstances where the informant had appeared before the magistrate). Notwithstanding the Smith court's determination, the court found in considering the totality of the circumstances that the informant's appearance supported his reliability, regardless of whether he was questioned.