Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2024 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Slatergreen2 sentences2024People v. Slater, 228 Ill. 2d 137, 149 (2008). 2023People v. Slater, 228 Ill. 2d 137, 149 (2008). ¶ 15 The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution provides the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const., amend. | 4 | 4 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2020People v. Slater, 228 Ill. 2d 137, 149 (2008). 5 1-16-0183 ¶ 21 Under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 454 (1966), once a suspect is in custody, his statements in response to custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless he has first been warned of his constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and to be represented by counsel Custodial interrogation means “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Id. 2020People v. Slater, 228 Ill. 2d 137, 149 (2008). 5 1-16-0183 ¶ 21 Under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 454 (1966), once a suspect is in custody, his statements in response to custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless he has first been warned of his constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and to be represented by counsel Custodial interrogation means “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Id. | 1 | 4 |
People v. Brooksgreen1 sentence2019See People v. Brooks, 187 Ill. 2d 91, 129 (1986) (finding that the testimony at the pretrial hearing and at trial provided a sufficient account of events to determine whether the identification had an independent basis, rendering it unnecessary to remand for further proceedings). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Wyma
green
2 sentences2024People v. Wyma, 2020 IL App (1st) 170786, ¶ 57 . ¶ 61 After reviewing the video of the reenactment and the testimony at the suppression hearing and trial, we conclude under the specific circumstances of this case that Logan was subjected to a custodial interrogation. 2024People v. Wyma, 2020 IL App (1st) 170786, ¶ 57 . ¶ 61 After reviewing the video of the reenactment and the testimony at the suppression hearing and trial, we conclude under the specific circumstances of this case that Logan was subjected to a custodial interrogation. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Graves
green
2 sentences2006The State relies upon People v. Graves, 281 Ill.App.3d 386, 390-91 , 217 Ill.Dec. 303 , 667 N.E.2d 96 (1996), where the court found reasonable suspicion that the defendant had purchased drugs on the following facts: "Our examination of the testimony at the suppression hearing leads us to conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that the stop of the taxi by the officers was based on a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity as contemplated by Terry v. Ohio. 2006The State relies upon People v. Graves, 281 Ill.App.3d 386, 390-91 , 217 Ill.Dec. 303 , 667 N.E.2d 96 (1996), where the court found reasonable suspicion that the defendant had purchased drugs on the following facts: "Our examination of the testimony at the suppression hearing leads us to conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that the stop of the taxi by the officers was based on a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity as contemplated by Terry v. Ohio. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Speer
green
2 sentences1995At the conclusion of the testimony at the suppression hearing, defendant presented the trial court with a copy of People v. Speer (1989), 184 Ill. 1995App. 3d 730 , 540 N.E.2d 1089 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Swift
green
2 sentences1988App. 3d 486 , 378 N.E.2d 234 , also cited by defendant, the testimony at the suppression hearing “wholly failed to meet the requirement of the second prong of the Aguilar test.” ( 61 Ill. 1988App. 3d 486 , 378 N.E.2d 234 , also cited by defendant, the testimony at the suppression hearing “wholly failed to meet the requirement of the second prong of the Aguilar test.” ( 61 Ill. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Forsyth v. United States
green
1 sentence1986Defendant approached the detectives sometime after 2 p.m. on November 10, informing them he wished to talk about his brother Andy. ( Cf. People v. Davis (1983), 95 Ill.2d 1, 24-25 , 447 N.E.2d 353, 364 , cert. denied (1983), 464 U.S. 1001 , 78 L.Ed.2d 697 , 104 S.Ct. 507 (where, in finding statement voluntary, the court noted that the defendant, like defendant here, initiated the contact with the police officer).) Defendant agreed to travel with the detectives to the *1009 Villa Park police station, and they arrived at 2:30 to 2:45 p.m. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Goodman v. United States
green
1 sentence1986Defendant approached the detectives sometime after 2 p.m. on November 10, informing them he wished to talk about his brother Andy. ( Cf. People v. Davis (1983), 95 Ill.2d 1, 24-25 , 447 N.E.2d 353, 364 , cert. denied (1983), 464 U.S. 1001 , 78 L.Ed.2d 697 , 104 S.Ct. 507 (where, in finding statement voluntary, the court noted that the defendant, like defendant here, initiated the contact with the police officer).) Defendant agreed to travel with the detectives to the *1009 Villa Park police station, and they arrived at 2:30 to 2:45 p.m. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Davis
green
2 sentences1986Defendant approached the detectives sometime after 2 p.m. on November 10, informing them he wished to talk about his brother Andy. ( Cf. People v. Davis (1983), 95 Ill.2d 1, 24-25 , 447 N.E.2d 353, 364 , cert. denied (1983), 464 U.S. 1001 , 78 L.Ed.2d 697 , 104 S.Ct. 507 (where, in finding statement voluntary, the court noted that the defendant, like defendant here, initiated the contact with the police officer).) Defendant agreed to travel with the detectives to the *1009 Villa Park police station, and they arrived at 2:30 to 2:45 p.m. 1986Defendant approached the detectives sometime after 2 p.m. on November 10, informing them he wished to talk about his brother Andy. ( Cf. People v. Davis (1983), 95 Ill.2d 1, 24-25 , 447 N.E.2d 353, 364 , cert. denied (1983), 464 U.S. 1001 , 78 L.Ed.2d 697 , 104 S.Ct. 507 (where, in finding statement voluntary, the court noted that the defendant, like defendant here, initiated the contact with the police officer).) Defendant agreed to travel with the detectives to the *1009 Villa Park police station, and they arrived at 2:30 to 2:45 p.m. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
J. C. Lynch & Son v. Cusaac
green
1 sentence1986Defendant approached the detectives sometime after 2 p.m. on November 10, informing them he wished to talk about his brother Andy. ( Cf. People v. Davis (1983), 95 Ill.2d 1, 24-25 , 447 N.E.2d 353, 364 , cert. denied (1983), 464 U.S. 1001 , 78 L.Ed.2d 697 , 104 S.Ct. 507 (where, in finding statement voluntary, the court noted that the defendant, like defendant here, initiated the contact with the police officer).) Defendant agreed to travel with the detectives to the *1009 Villa Park police station, and they arrived at 2:30 to 2:45 p.m. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Cozzi
green
1 sentence1982App. 3d 94, 99 , 416 N.E.2d 1192 .) The testimony at the suppression hearing indicated that defendant was informed of and acknowledged that he understood his right to counsel. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.