80 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2026 27 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. Jamesgreen2 sentences2026“Under the automobile exception, law enforcement officers may undertake a warrantless search of a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that the automobile contains evidence of criminal activity that the officers are entitled to seize.” People v. James, 163 Ill. 2d 302, 312 (1994). ¶ 23 C. 2024“Under the automobile exception, law enforcement officers may undertake a warrantless search of a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that the automobile contains evidence of criminal activity that the officers are entitled to seize.” People v. James, 163 Ill. 2d 302, 312 (1994). -5- ¶ 21 C. | 12 | 19 |
United States v. Rossgreen2 sentences2025“The scope of a warrantless search under the automobile exception ‘is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.’ ” People v. McGhee, 2020 IL App (3d) 180349, ¶ 34 (quoting Ross, 456 U.S. at 824 ) (a search of a glove box was justified under the automobile exception because the officers had probable cause to search the locked glove compartment for open containers of alcohol). 2025“The scope of a warrantless search under the automobile exception ‘is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.’ ” People v. McGhee, 2020 IL App (3d) 180349, ¶ 34 (quoting Ross, 456 U.S. at 824 ) (a search of a glove box was justified under the automobile exception because the officers had probable cause to search the locked glove compartment for open containers of alcohol). | 4 | 13 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen2 sentences2026Probable Cause ¶ 24 Probable cause exists where the evidence known to the officer raises a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). “[P]robable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 243 n.13. 2026Probable Cause ¶ 24 Probable cause exists where the evidence known to the officer raises a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). “[P]robable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 243 n.13. | 4 | 4 |
People v. McGheegreen2 sentences2025“The scope of a warrantless search under the automobile exception ‘is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.’ ” People v. McGhee, 2020 IL App (3d) 180349, ¶ 34 (quoting Ross, 456 U.S. at 824 ) (a search of a glove box was justified under the automobile exception because the officers had probable cause to search the locked glove compartment for open containers of alcohol). 2025“The scope of a warrantless search under the automobile exception ‘is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.’ ” People v. McGhee, 2020 IL App (3d) 180349, ¶ 34 (quoting Ross, 456 U.S. at 824 ) (a search of a glove box was justified under the automobile exception because the officers had probable cause to search the locked glove compartment for open containers of alcohol). | 3 | 4 |
Arizona v. Gantgreen2 sentences2023See Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 335 (2009); People v. Cregan, 2014 IL 113600, ¶ 1 , 10 N.E.3d 1196 ; People v. Frias, 393 Ill. 2022See Gant, 556 U.S. at 347 ; United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-21 (1982). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Luedemanngreen2 sentences2020Id. ¶ 27 As a preliminary matter, Davis argues that the State cannot raise its argument based on the automobile exception, having not argued that theory in the trial court. 2019Id. ¶ 27 As a preliminary matter, Davis argues that the State cannot raise its argument based on the automobile exception having not argued that theory in the trial court. | 3 | 3 |
Carroll v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2021See In re O.S., 2018 IL App (1st) 171765, ¶ 29 .) ¶ 62 For purposes of the fourth amendment, and the automobile exception to the warrant requirement in particular, “contraband” includes “all items that are unlawful to possess, regardless of the accompanying penalty.” Hill, 2020 IL 124595 , ¶¶ 28-29; see Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 154 (1925). 1994(See, e.g., Carroll v. United States (1925), 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 .) Thus, in United States v. Ross (1982), 456 U.S. 798 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L.Ed.2d 572 , and in California v. Acevedo (1991), 500 U.S. 565 , 111 S.Ct. 1982 , 114 L.Ed.2d 619 , the Supreme Court held that, under the automobile exception, police officers may undertake a warrantless search of a closed container found in a vehicle when the officers have probable cause to believe that evidence of criminal activity will be found in the container. *201 The State relies upon the view expressed by the Court in Ros | 2 | 6 |
People v. Stroudgreen2 sentences2009App. 3d 776, 803 (2009). -8- No. 2--08--0552 "Under the automobile exception, police officers may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle if they lawfully stop the vehicle and have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity. [Citation.] An officer may make a limited stop of an individual when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. [Citation.] The reviewing court must look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the officer had a reasonable belief th 2009“Under the automobile exception, police officers may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle if they lawfully stop the vehicle and have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity. [Citation.] An officer may make a limited stop of an individual when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. [Citation.] The reviewing court must look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the officer had a reasonable belief that the person was involved in criminal activi | 2 | 6 |
People v. Gipsongreen2 sentences2022The State concludes that the search was supported by probable cause and, as such, was proper pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. ¶ 31 On a motion to suppress, the defendant bears the burden of establishing a “prima facie case that the evidence was obtained by an illegal search or seizure.” People v. Gipson, 203 Ill. 2d 298, 306-07 (2003). 2021Some of those exceptions include the automobile exception (People v. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶¶ 21-22 ), a search incident to arrest (Cregan, 2014 IL 113600, ¶ 25 ), and an inventory search of a vehicle that has been lawfully impounded (People v. Gipson, 203 Ill. 2d 298, 304 (2003)). ¶ 16 Although the State argues that, pursuant to any of these three warrant exceptions, the police were permitted to search the blue Mazda and seize the keys in the ignition, it also posits that the record is deficient to review defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Christmasgreen2 sentences2011People v. Christmas, 396 Ill.App.3d 951, 957 , 336 Ill.Dec. 650 , 920 N.E.2d 1240 (2009) (citing People v. Stroud, 392 Ill.App.3d 776, 803 , 331 Ill.Dec. 922 , 911 N.E.2d 1152 (2009)). 2011People v. Christmas, 396 Ill.App.3d 951, 957 , 336 Ill.Dec. 650 , 920 N.E.2d 1240 (2009) (citing People v. Stroud, 392 Ill.App.3d 776, 803 , 331 Ill.Dec. 922 , 911 N.E.2d 1152 (2009)). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Nadermanngreen2 sentences2007People v. Nadermann, 309 Ill. 2007Nadermann, 309 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Wardgreen2 sentences2005See People v. Ward, 205 Ill. 2005See People v. Ward , 205 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Scuddergreen2 sentences2000People v. Scudder, 175 Ill. 2000People v. Scudder , 175 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hillgreen2 sentences2026“The automobile exception is justified because of an automobile’s ‘transient -6- nature,’ which ‘often renders it impracticable to secure a warrant before the automobile escapes the jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.’ ” Molina, 2024 IL 129237, ¶ 20 (quoting People v. Hill, 2020 IL 124595 , ¶ 21). 2024The automobile exception is justified because of an automobile’s “transient nature,” which “often renders it impracticable to secure a warrant before the automobile escapes the jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.” Hill, 2020 IL 124595 , ¶ 21. | 1 | 12 |
People v. Parkergreen2 sentences2012See People v. Parker, 354 Ill.App.3d 40, 45 , 289 Ill.Dec. 941 , 820 N.E.2d 1016 (2004) (generally, searches and seizures are reasonable only if the government first obtains a warrant, unless, under a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, such as the automobile exception, the officer has reason to believe that a crime has occurred and evidence of the crime is located in the automobile). 2012See People v. Parker, 354 Ill.App.3d 40, 45 , 289 Ill.Dec. 941 , 820 N.E.2d 1016 (2004) (generally, searches and seizures are reasonable only if the government first obtains a warrant, unless, under a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, such as the automobile exception, the officer has reason to believe that a crime has occurred and evidence of the crime is located in the automobile). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Molinagreen2 sentences2026“Under the automobile exception, law enforcement officers may undertake a warrantless search of a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that the automobile contains evidence of criminal activity that the officers are entitled to seize.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Molina, 2024 IL 129237, ¶ 20 . ¶ 41 “Probable cause requires a showing that the totality of the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of the search would justify a reasonable person in believing that the automobile contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity.” People v. Webb, 2023 IL 128957 2026“The automobile exception is justified because of an automobile’s ‘transient -6- nature,’ which ‘often renders it impracticable to secure a warrant before the automobile escapes the jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.’ ” Molina, 2024 IL 129237, ¶ 20 (quoting People v. Hill, 2020 IL 124595 , ¶ 21). | 1 | 2 |
California v. Acevedogreen2 sentences1994Ed. 2d 619 , 111 S. Ct. 1982 , the Supreme Court held that, under the automobile exception, police officers may undertake a warrantless search of a closed container found in a vehicle when the officers have probable cause to believe that evidence of criminal activity will be found in the container. 1994(See, e.g., Carroll v. United States (1925), 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 .) Thus, in United States v. Ross (1982), 456 U.S. 798 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L.Ed.2d 572 , and in California v. Acevedo (1991), 500 U.S. 565 , 111 S.Ct. 1982 , 114 L.Ed.2d 619 , the Supreme Court held that, under the automobile exception, police officers may undertake a warrantless search of a closed container found in a vehicle when the officers have probable cause to believe that evidence of criminal activity will be found in the container. *201 The State relies upon the view expressed by the Court in Ros | 1 | 2 |
South Dakota v. Oppermangreen2 sentences2011App.3d 1073, 1082 , 265 Ill.Dec. 432 , 772 N.E.2d 803 (2002) (citing South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 367 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)). ¶ 14 Defendant points out that the automobile exception is based on a vehicle being readily moveable and capable of eluding police ( California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 393 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985)) and that the application of the exception requires the "presence of the vehicle in a setting that objectively indicates the vehicle is being used for transportation" ( Carney, 471 U.S. at 394 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 ). 2011App.3d 1073, 1082 , 265 Ill.Dec. 432 , 772 N.E.2d 803 (2002) (citing South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 367 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)). ¶ 14 Defendant points out that the automobile exception is based on a vehicle being readily moveable and capable of eluding police ( California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 393 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985)) and that the application of the exception requires the "presence of the vehicle in a setting that objectively indicates the vehicle is being used for transportation" ( Carney, 471 U.S. at 394 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 ). | 1 | 2 |
California v. Carneygreen2 sentences2011App.3d 1073, 1082 , 265 Ill.Dec. 432 , 772 N.E.2d 803 (2002) (citing South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 367 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)). ¶ 14 Defendant points out that the automobile exception is based on a vehicle being readily moveable and capable of eluding police ( California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 393 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985)) and that the application of the exception requires the "presence of the vehicle in a setting that objectively indicates the vehicle is being used for transportation" ( Carney, 471 U.S. at 394 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 ). 2011App.3d 1073, 1082 , 265 Ill.Dec. 432 , 772 N.E.2d 803 (2002) (citing South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 367 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)). ¶ 14 Defendant points out that the automobile exception is based on a vehicle being readily moveable and capable of eluding police ( California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 393 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985)) and that the application of the exception requires the "presence of the vehicle in a setting that objectively indicates the vehicle is being used for transportation" ( Carney, 471 U.S. at 394 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 ). | 1 | 2 |
| Pennsylvania v. Mimmsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| O.S. v. O.S.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wyoming v. Houghtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Jamesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Gillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Talachgreen | 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. Contreras
green
2 sentences2024Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977). ¶ 27 Pertinent here, the automobile exception provides that, due to their transient nature, automobiles may be searched so long as “probable cause exists to believe the automobile contains evidence of criminal activity subject to seizure.” People v. Contreras, 2014 IL App (1st) 131889, ¶ 28 ; see also People v. James, 163 Ill. 2d 302, 312 (1994). 2023Pertinent here, the automobile exception provides that, due to their transient nature, automobiles may be searched so long as “probable cause exists to believe the automobile contains evidence of criminal activity subject to seizure.” People v. Contreras, 2014 IL App (1st) 131889, ¶ 28 . | 8 | 2019–2024 |
People v. Smith
green
2 sentences1994(Smith, 95 Ill. 2d at 420 .) Thus, the officer’s search of the "one-hitter box” was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. ( 95 Ill. 2d at 420 .) We find Smith distinguishable and thus inapplicable because in Smith there were other indices of unlawful activity or contraband in addition to the officer’s seeing the one-hitter box to support a finding of probable cause to search. 1994(Smith, 95 Ill. 2d at 420 .) Thus, the officer’s search of the "one-hitter box” was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. ( 95 Ill. 2d at 420 .) We find Smith distinguishable and thus inapplicable because in Smith there were other indices of unlawful activity or contraband in addition to the officer’s seeing the one-hitter box to support a finding of probable cause to search. | 6 | 1990–2004 |
People v. Stribling
green
2 sentences2024Probable cause to search a vehicle -8- 2024 IL App (2d) 230298-U exists where “the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time would warrant a reasonable person to believe there is a reasonable probability that the automobile contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity.” People v. Stribling, 2022 IL App (3d) 210098, ¶ 10 . 2022Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, “a warrantless search of a vehicle is not per se unreasonable as the transient nature of vehicles renders it unfeasible to secure a warrant before the vehicle leaves the jurisdiction, with the potential evidence of a crime or contraband in tow.” Id. | 3 | 2022–2024 |
Collins v. Virginia
green
2 sentences2019Collins, 584 U.S. at ___, 138 S. Ct. at 1671 . ¶ 31 The Supreme Court then declined to extend the automobile exception to permit a warrantless intrusion on a home or its curtilage. 2019The Court thus rejected the State’s suggestion that it adopt a more limited rule and hold that the automobile exception does not permit warrantless entry into “ ‘the physical threshold of a house or a similar fixed, enclosed structure inside the curtilage like a garage.’ ” Collins, 584 U.S. at ___, 138 S. Ct. at 1674 . | 3 | 2018–2020 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
green
2 sentences1993Ed. 2d 564 , 91 S. Ct. 2022 , defendant argues that the automobile exception does not apply in the instant case because there were no exigent circumstances justifying the police officers’ failure to obtain a warrant. 1982Cf. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).” Crucial to Coolidge, however, was that the seizure of the cars occurred on defendant’s private property and thus the cars were seized from a place where the police had no right to be. | 3 | 1980–1993 |
People v. Webb
green
2 sentences2026“Under the automobile exception, law enforcement officers may undertake a warrantless search of a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that the automobile contains evidence of criminal activity that the officers are entitled to seize.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Molina, 2024 IL 129237, ¶ 20 . ¶ 41 “Probable cause requires a showing that the totality of the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of the search would justify a reasonable person in believing that the automobile contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity.” People v. Webb, 2023 IL 128957 2026“Because probable cause deals with probabilities, not certainties, probable cause does not require an officer to rule out any innocent explanations for suspicious facts.” Id. | 2 | 2024–2026 |
People v. Cregan
green
2 sentences2023See Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 335 (2009); People v. Cregan, 2014 IL 113600, ¶ 1 , 10 N.E.3d 1196 ; People v. Frias, 393 Ill. 2021Some of those exceptions include the automobile exception (People v. Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶¶ 21-22 ), a search incident to arrest (Cregan, 2014 IL 113600, ¶ 25 ), and an inventory search of a vehicle that has been lawfully impounded (People v. Gipson, 203 Ill. 2d 298, 304 (2003)). ¶ 16 Although the State argues that, pursuant to any of these three warrant exceptions, the police were permitted to search the blue Mazda and seize the keys in the ignition, it also posits that the record is deficient to review defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
People v. Jones
green
2 sentences2019Jones , 215 Ill. 2d at 271 , 294 Ill.Dec. 129 , 830 N.E.2d 541 . ¶ 18 Under the automobile exception, police officers may search a vehicle without a warrant where probable cause exists to believe the vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity subject to seizure. 2019Jones , 215 Ill. 2d at 271 , 294 Ill.Dec. 129 , 830 N.E.2d 541 . ¶ 18 Under the automobile exception, police officers may search a vehicle without a warrant where probable cause exists to believe the vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity subject to seizure. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.
red
2 sentences1984(Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 353 , 392 N.E.2d 1 .) In the instant case the plaintiff Mrs. Trillet observed the defendant’s automobile twice, and she testified as to its speed and movement. 1984(Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 353 , 392 N.E.2d 1 .) In the instant case the plaintiff Mrs. Trillet observed the defendant’s automobile twice, and she testified as to its speed and movement. | 2 | 1981–1984 |
New York v. Belton
red
2 sentences1984Ed. 2d 768, 775 , 101 S. Ct. 2860, 2864 .) It is important to observe that neither Robinson nor Belton can be distinguished on the ground that the holding rested upon the automobile exception to the fourth amendment discussed in Carroll v. United States (1925), 267 U.S. 132 , 69 L. 1984The Supreme Court referred to its holding in Robinson as "a straight forward rule, easily applied, and predictably enforced." ( New York v. Belton (1981), 453 U.S. 454, 459 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768, 774 , 101 S.Ct. 2860, 2863 .) And it is to be observed that the court in Belton extended Robinson by holding that all containers within the defendant's immediate control could also be searched regardless of the likelihood that a weapon or evidence of criminal conduct would be found. ( 453 U.S. 454, 461 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768, 775 , 101 S.Ct. 2860, 2864 .) It is important to observe that neither Robinson nor Belt | 2 | 1983–1984 |
Chambers v. Maroney
green
2 sentences1980Ed. 2d 419 , 90 S. Ct. 1975 .) The Chadwick court refused to extend the automobile exception to all searches of luggage based on the fact that neither of the two policy considerations supporting the automobile exception apply to the search of luggage; that is, the court focused on the mobility of automobiles and the limited expectation of privacy in a vehicle. 1979(Chambers v. Maroney (1970), 399 U.S. 42 , 26 L. | 2 | 1979–1980 |
| United States v. Chadwick red | 2 | 1978–1979 |
| People v. Frias green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| In re Marriage of Reicher green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Bass green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Hill green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Morales green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Redwood v. Lierman green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Henderson v. Security Nat. Bank green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| People v. Clark green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Robbins v. California red | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| People v. Bayles green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| People v. Hamilton green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Schmerber v. California green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| The PEOPLE v. McKnight green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| People v. Zazzetti green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| People v. Barksdale green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Jones v. Maryland green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.