On Sept. 28, 2023, the Second District of the Illinois Appellate Court held police officers have probable cause to search a vehicle if they detect the smell of cannabis.
On Sept. 8, 2022, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court held that there was no probable cause to search a vehicle a second time after a thorough first search yielded no illegal evidence.
On Mar. 7, 2022, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court vacated a conviction because failure to argue suppression of evidence under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
On March 10, 2021, the Second District of the Illinois Appellate Court held that a detective did not violate the Fourth Amendment by obtaining information via subpoena to the defendant’s internet service provider (ISP).
On March 17, 2021, the Fourth District of the Illinois Appellate Court held that a defendant’s nonverbal consent to a police search must be unambiguously clear.
On Feb. 22, 2021, the Second District of the Illinois Appellate Court suppressed evidence obtained from a trauma room where the defendant was being treated because the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that room.
On Jan. 29, 2021, the Third District of the Illinois Appellate Court vacated a defendant’s conviction after granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop based on a mistake of law by the arresting officer.
On Dec. 7, 2020, the Third District of the Illinois Appellate Court held that a police officer’s request of a driver’s license after the original reason for the traffic stop had dissipated did not unreasonably prolong the stop to the extent of constituting an unreasonable search and seizure.
On Aug. 24, 2020, the Second District of the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a trial court ruling that police officers’ entry into a home was justified and the officers were lawfully in the defendant’s premises when they saw cannabis in plain sight.
On April 16, 2020, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Third District Appellate Court and ruled that a warrantless dog sniff outside the door of the defendant’s motel room did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.
Nervousness, a criminal history, and other odd behavior are not enough to create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity during a traffic stop, according to the fourth district.
The Appellate Court of Illinois held that a search and seizure was improper where an officer did not have probable cause (nor a reasonable, articulable suspicion) to detain, and it was no longer a consensual encounter because a reasonable individual would not have believed they were permitted to leave the scene.
On August 26, 2015, the Third District Appellate Court reversed the circuit court's grant of defendants' motions to suppress evidence of heroin obtained during a traffic stop.
The Supreme Court ruled that a "reasonable mistake of law" can provide reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop. Are police being held to a lower standard than ordinary citizens?
The Riley court established a rare bright-line rule under the Fourth Amendment when it declared that data searches of cell phones - regardless of type - are unlawful incident to arrest.
The Illinois Supreme Court rules that police can search an arrestee's luggage after he was handcuffed on a civil warrant for failure to pay child support.
Unlike an earlier decision this term that allowed dog-sniff evidence from a traffic stop, Jardines holds that the dog-sniff search of a front porch requires a warrant.
In Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court held that dog-sniff evidence can be admissible even if prosecutors do not lay a detailed foundation that the dog is well trained.
In Arizona v. Gant, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed warrantless searches when an arrestee is unsecured and can reach the passenger compartment or it's "reasonable to believe" incriminating evidence "might be" inside. But Gant raises as many questions as it answers - here's a look at how Illinois courts have reacted.
On March 24, 2011, the Supreme Court of Illinois held that, as a matter of apparent first impression nationwide, police officers' actions in ordering defendant to roll up her windows and turn the blowers on high before they conduct a dog sniff of the defendant's truck exterior did not constitute an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment.
A police officer's good faith but mistaken belief about the law does not support probable cause to initiate a traffic stop, according to an Illinois Court of Appeals. The court affirmed a decision to suppress evidence, which was the result of a traffic stop initiated when an officer believed the defendant violated a traffic law but was mistaken about what the law actually prohibited.
State lawmakers recently expanded offenses for which police may seize a vehicle. Vehicles, vessels, and aircrafts operated in Illinois are subject to seizure if the owner knows and consents to the use and that use violates certain laws. (720 ILCS 5/36-1).
Thieves of precious and scrap metals could have their vehicles seized if the vehicle is used to steal the metal, under a new law passed by state lawmakers.
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Illinois Supreme Court issued decisions that give police more freedom to search and question vehicle occupants at traffic stops.
