inevitable discovery doctrine in Illinois

2026There are exceptions to the exclusionary rule, including the inevitable-discovery doctrine, which permits the admission of otherwise illegally obtained evidence if the State proves “by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984). ¶ 119 Defendant argues that the State forfeits any argument that the inevitable-discovery doctrine applies.

2025The inevitable discovery doctrine provides “that evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights and which otherwise would be inadmissible at trial may be admitted if the prosecution is able to show that the challenged evidence ‘would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct.’ ” Id. at 142 (1991) (quoting Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 448 (1984)). ¶ 62 Defendant argues that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply because the information the officers used to secure the warrant was obtained after their unlawful entry into

2024See People v. Sutherland, 223 Ill.2d 187, 228 (2006); People v. Burns, 2020 IL App (3d) 170103, ¶ 48 .

2021“This exception [to the exclusionary rule] permits evidence, that would otherwise be inadmissible at trial, to be admitted where the State can show that such evidence would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct.” (Internal quotation - 10 - marks omitted.) People v. Sutherland, 223 Ill. 2d 187, 227-28 , 860 N.E.2d 178, 209 (2006). ¶ 41 Price testified he arrested defendant for driving 115 miles per hour in a 70-mile- per-hour zone.

2025However, the trial court determined, pursuant to the inevitable discovery doctrine, that suppression of the evidence obtained from the cellphone was not warranted because the officers did not search the cellphone based on either the passcode or signed consent form, but rather based on a signed search warrant. ¶ 61 “The ‘inevitable discovery doctrine’ was developed as an exception to the exclusionary rule, which requires exclusion from use at a criminal trial illegally obtained evidence.” People v. Edwards, 144 Ill. 2d 108, 143 (1991).

2025The inevitable discovery doctrine provides “that evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights and which otherwise would be inadmissible at trial may be admitted if the prosecution is able to show that the challenged evidence ‘would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct.’ ” Id. at 142 (1991) (quoting Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 448 (1984)). ¶ 62 Defendant argues that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply because the information the officers used to secure the warrant was obtained after their unlawful entry into

2026Inevitable Discovery ¶ 67 The inevitable discovery doctrine allows for the admission of evidence that would otherwise be suppressed “where the record shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged information or evidence would have been ultimately or inevitably discovered by lawful means.” People v. Shanklin, 250 Ill.

2026The inevitable discovery doctrine applies where the following three criteria are met: “(1) the condition of the evidence must be the same when found illegally as it would have been when found legally; (2) the evidence would have been found by an independent line of investigation untainted by the illegal conduct; and (3) the independent line of - 25 - investigation must have already begun when the evidence was discovered illegally.” Id. at 696 .

2023See People v. Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 33 (explaining that under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine any evidence obtained by an illegal search “is subject to suppression as the ‘fruit’ of that poisonous tree”); see also People v. Lockett, 2022 IL App (1st) 190716, ¶ 19 .

2021See Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 51 ; see also Gayden, 2020 IL 123505, ¶¶ 29, 36 (noting that the record was insufficient to fully address and resolve the defendant’s ineffectiveness claim).

2003The rationale for the inevitable-discovery doctrine is that "while `the prosecution is not to be put in a better position than it would have been in if no illegality had transpired,' the prosecution should not be put `in a worse position simply because of some earlier police error or misconduct.'" (Emphasis omitted.) People v. Burnidge, 178 Ill.2d 429, 437 , 227 Ill.Dec. 331 , 687 N.E.2d 813 (1997), quoting Nix, 467 U.S. at 443 , 104 S.Ct. at 2508 , 81 L.Ed.2d at 387 .

2003The rationale for the inevitable-discovery doctrine is that "while `the prosecution is not to be put in a better position than it would have been in if no illegality had transpired,' the prosecution should not be put `in a worse position simply because of some earlier police error or misconduct.'" (Emphasis omitted.) People v. Burnidge, 178 Ill.2d 429, 437 , 227 Ill.Dec. 331 , 687 N.E.2d 813 (1997), quoting Nix, 467 U.S. at 443 , 104 S.Ct. at 2508 , 81 L.Ed.2d at 387 .

2022See People v. Lopez, 229 Ill.2d 322 (2008). ¶ 79 In the case at bar, the State never had the opportunity to shoulder their burden to show that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies here, as the trial court pronounced that it applied without giving its reasons or whether it took judicial notice of the procedures of the police department when they search motor vehicles that are towed from a crime scene.

2022See People v. Lopez, 229 Ill.2d 322 (2008). ¶ 79 In the case at bar, the State never had the opportunity to shoulder their burden to show that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies here, as the trial court pronounced that it applied without giving its reasons or whether it took judicial notice of the procedures of the police department when they search motor vehicles that are towed from a crime scene.

2021People v. Lewis, 363 Ill.

2021People v. Lewis, 363 Ill.

2021See Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 51 ; see also Gayden, 2020 IL 123505, ¶¶ 29, 36 (noting that the record was insufficient to fully address and resolve the defendant’s ineffectiveness claim).

2021See Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 51 ; see also Gayden, 2020 IL 123505, ¶¶ 29, 36 (noting that the record was insufficient to fully address and resolve the defendant’s ineffectiveness claim).

2016Lawful means in this instance means that the police would have had to either (1) gain non-coered permission from defendant or someone else with authority to grant such permission to enter and search the identified area (Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 106 (2006)), (2) identify an exigent circumstance allowing for 9 warrantless reentry (People v. Wimbley, 314 Ill.

2016Lawful means in this instance means that the police would have had to either (1) gain non-coered permission from defendant or someone else with authority to grant such permission to enter and search the identified area (Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 106 (2006)), (2) identify an exigent circumstance allowing for 9 warrantless reentry (People v. Wimbley, 314 Ill.

2016Lawful means in this instance means that the police would have had to either (1) gain non-coered permission from defendant or someone else with authority to grant such permission to enter and search the identified area (Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 106 (2006)), (2) identify an exigent circumstance allowing for 9 warrantless reentry (People v. Wimbley, 314 Ill.

2016Lawful means in this instance means that the police would have had to either (1) gain non-coered permission from defendant or someone else with authority to grant such permission to enter and search the identified area (Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 106 (2006)), (2) identify an exigent circumstance allowing for 9 warrantless reentry (People v. Wimbley, 314 Ill.

2010People v. Alvarado, 268 Ill.

2010People v. Alvarado, 268 Ill.

2008“The inevitable discovery exception provides that where the record shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence would have inevitably been discovered by lawful means, the evidence is admissible.” People v. Harris, 297 Ill.

2008“The inevitable discovery exception provides that where the record shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence would have inevitably been discovered by lawful means, the evidence is admissible.” People v. Harris, 297 Ill.

2026See People v. Alexander, 2021 IL App (2d) 180193, ¶ 47 .

2021Defendant argues that, instead of - 14 - 2021 IL App (2d) 180193 applying the inevitable discovery doctrine or explaining why we did not, we “instead simply chose to follow [Boston]” even though that opinion “similarly did not engage in such an analysis.” ¶ 46 Again, we clarify what we said in O’Dette.

2024See People v. Sutherland, 223 Ill.2d 187, 228 (2006); People v. Burns, 2020 IL App (3d) 170103, ¶ 48 .

2022See, e.g., Burns, 2020 IL App (3d) 170103, ¶ 48 .

2021But even if the frisk could not be justified through the lens of Terry, the inevitable- discovery doctrine applies. “ ‘For the inevitable discovery doctrine to apply, three criteria must be met: (1) the condition of the evidence must be the same when found illegally as it would have been when found legally; (2) the evidence would have been found by an independent line of investigation untainted by the illegal conduct; and (3) the independent line of investigation must have already begun when the evidence was discovered illegally.’ ” People v. Baker, 2020 IL App (2d) 180300, ¶ 21 (quoting Peopl

2020The parties dispute whether defendant was illegally arrested, but we need not decide this issue because we agree with the trial court that the evidence would have been discovered in any event. -5- 2020 IL App (2d) 180300 ¶ 21 “For the inevitable discovery doctrine to apply, three criteria must be met: (1) the condition of the evidence must be the same when found illegally as it would have been when found legally; (2) the evidence would have been found by an independent line of investigation untainted by the illegal conduct; and (3) the independent line of investigation must have already begun

2018Id. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2061 .The attenuation doctrine allows for the admission of evidence obtained unlawfully when the connection between the unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so that “ ‘the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained.’ ” Id. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2061 (quoting Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 593 (2006)). ¶ 25 In Utah v. Strieff, the Supreme Court considered whether the discovery of a valid existing w

2017Id. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 2061 .The attenuation doctrine allows for the admission of evidence obtained unlawfully when the connection between the unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so that " 'the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained.' " Id. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 2061 . (quoting Hudson v. Michigan , 547 U.S. 586 , 593, 126 S.Ct. 2159 , 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006) ). ¶ 25 In Utah v. Strieff , the Supreme Court considered whet

2026See People v. Roberts, 2021 IL App (3d) 190445, ¶ 44 (as a reason to find the inevitable-discovery doctrine applied to the defendant’s Facebook messages, the court stated the messages were exchanged with a witness who testified for the State pursuant to a plea agreement).

2023See People v. Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 33 (explaining that under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine any evidence obtained by an illegal search “is subject to suppression as the ‘fruit’ of that poisonous tree”); see also People v. Lockett, 2022 IL App (1st) 190716, ¶ 19 .

2021Even if the frisk could not be justified as a Terry frisk, the inevitable-discovery doctrine applies, so the evidence of the firearm need not be excluded. ¶ 50 A. When Defendant was Seized - 14 - 2021 IL App (2d) 200350-U ¶ 51 “The conduct constituting the stop under Terry must have been justified at its inception.” People v. Thomas, 198 Ill. 2d 103, 109 (2001).

2021See People v. James, 2021 IL App (1st) 180509, ¶ 36 (we need not discuss the parties’ alternative arguments about the inevitable discovery doctrine where there was no fourth amendment violation). ¶ 37 CONCLUSION ¶ 38 We conclude the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of the gun because the search of defendant’s drawstring bag was justified under the automobile exception.

2021See People v. James, 2021 IL App (1st) 180509, ¶ 36 (we need not discuss the parties’ alternative arguments about the inevitable discovery doctrine where there was no fourth amendment violation). ¶ 37 CONCLUSION ¶ 38 We conclude the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of the gun because the search of defendant’s drawstring bag was justified under the automobile exception.