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.
13 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ohio v. Robinettegreen2 sentences2021Reasonableness is the touchstone of fourth amendment analysis and “is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances.” Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 (1996). 2019Reasonableness, as a touchstone of fourth amendment analysis, “ ‘is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances.’ ” Id. (quoting Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 (1996)). | 5 | 5 |
United States v. Brignoni-Poncegreen2 sentences2011"Reasonableness" depends upon "a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 , 95 S.Ct. 2574 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). 2011"Reasonableness" depends upon "a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 , 95 S.Ct. 2574 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). | 2 | 2 |
Pennsylvania v. Mimmsgreen2 sentences2011Once it is determined that a search or seizure has taken place, in order to pass constitutional muster, it must be "reasonable." Indeed, the touchstone of fourth amendment analysis "is always `the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.'" Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 ). 2011Once it is determined that a search or seizure has taken place, in order to pass constitutional muster, it must be "reasonable." Indeed, the touchstone of fourth amendment analysis "is always `the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.'" Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 ). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Dennis Dayton Holtgreen2 sentences2003United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215, 1220 (10th Cir. 2001). 2003United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215, 1220 (10th Cir.2001). | 2 | 2 |
Katz v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2025The acts necessary to view the contents of the cabinet indicated that the contents were not plainly visible, and those acts constituted a warrantless -7- search. ¶ 19 A. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy ¶ 20 “The touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is whether a person has a ‘constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.’ ” California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211 (1986) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring)). | 1 | 1 |
California v. Ciraologreen1 sentence2025The acts necessary to view the contents of the cabinet indicated that the contents were not plainly visible, and those acts constituted a warrantless -7- search. ¶ 19 A. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy ¶ 20 “The touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is whether a person has a ‘constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.’ ” California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211 (1986) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring)). | 1 | 1 |
Brigham City v. Stuartgreen1 sentence2021King, 563 U.S. at 459 ; Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006) (the touchstone of fourth amendment analysis always is “reasonableness”). | 1 | 1 |
Michael J. Green and Cheryl Poulsen v. Marlo Butler, David Carroll, Mark Salsberrygreen1 sentence2007Accord Green v. Butler, 420 F.3d 689, 694 (7th Cir. 2005) (“The touchstone of Fourth Amendment inquiry is reasonableness, *** a standard measured in light of the totality of the circumstances and determined by balancing the degree to which a challenged action intrudes on an individual’s privacy and the degree to which the action promotes a legitimate government interest”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2011Once it is determined that a search or seizure has taken place, in order to pass constitutional muster, it must be "reasonable." Indeed, the touchstone of fourth amendment analysis "is always `the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.'" Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 ). 2011Once it is determined that a search or seizure has taken place, in order to pass constitutional muster, it must be "reasonable." Indeed, the touchstone of fourth amendment analysis "is always `the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.'" Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 ). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Lindsey
green
1 sentence2025“Our analysis [of fourth amendment cases] begins and ends, therefore, with the question of whether the defendant has established a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched.” People v. Lindsey, 2020 IL 124289, ¶ 16 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Carter
green
1 sentence2023People v. Carter, 2021 IL 125954, ¶ 22 . ¶ 20 A traffic stop constitutes a seizure of the person, and if the seizure violates the fourth amendment, any evidence the State obtains as a result of that violation is suppressible. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Kentucky v. King
green
1 sentence2021King, 563 U.S. at 459 ; Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006) (the touchstone of fourth amendment analysis always is “reasonableness”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. McDonough
green
2 sentences2019Reasonableness, as a touchstone of fourth amendment analysis, “ ‘is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances.’ ” Id. (quoting Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 (1996)). 2019Reasonableness, as a touchstone of fourth amendment analysis, “ ‘is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances.’ ” Id. (quoting Robinette, 519 U.S. at 39 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Reedy
green
1 sentence2018Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 (1996). ¶ 52 Although a police officer may stop and briefly detain a motorist when the officer has observed the motorist committing a traffic offense (People v. Abdur-Rahim, 2014 IL App (3d) 130558, ¶ 26 , 16 N.E.3d 903 ), the traffic stop can become unlawful “if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to satisfy its initial purpose” (People v. Reedy, 2015 IL App (3d) 130955, ¶ 25 , 39 N.E.3d 318 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Abdur-Rahim
green
2 sentences2018Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 (1996). ¶ 52 Although a police officer may stop and briefly detain a motorist when the officer has observed the motorist committing a traffic offense (People v. Abdur-Rahim, 2014 IL App (3d) 130558, ¶ 26 , 16 N.E.3d 903 ), the traffic stop can become unlawful “if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to satisfy its initial purpose” (People v. Reedy, 2015 IL App (3d) 130955, ¶ 25 , 39 N.E.3d 318 ). 2018Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 (1996). ¶ 52 Although a police officer may stop and briefly detain a motorist when the officer has observed the motorist committing a traffic offense (People v. Abdur-Rahim, 2014 IL App (3d) 130558, ¶ 26 , 16 N.E.3d 903 ), the traffic stop can become unlawful “if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to satisfy its initial purpose” (People v. Reedy, 2015 IL App (3d) 130955, ¶ 25 , 39 N.E.3d 318 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.