vehicle for a traffic violation (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

vehicle for a traffic violation in Illinois

9 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2020 0 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Barteltgreen
illappct · 2008 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011In addition, seizure analysis was also used by the dissenting justice, who asserted that "[a] police officer who has stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation does not have unbridled authority to order and conduct chemical tests," and that under these facts it was impermissible for the officer to " order[ ] the occupants of the vehicle to engage in testing." (Emphases added.) 384 Ill.App.3d at 1036 , 323 Ill.

2011In addition, seizure analysis was also used by the dissenting justice, who asserted that "[a] police officer who has stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation does not have unbridled authority to order and conduct chemical tests," and that under these facts it was impermissible for the officer to " order[ ] the occupants of the vehicle to engage in testing." (Emphases added.) 384 Ill.App.3d at 1036 , 323 Ill.

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Harris green
ill · 2008
2 sentences

2010In Harris, 228 Ill. 2d at 232-38 , 886 N.E.2d at 955-58 , the supreme court held that when a police officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, passengers of that vehicle are lawfully seized, even if there is no individualized suspicion of criminal activity on his part at the time of the stop.

2010In Harris, 228 Ill. 2d at 232-38 , 886 N.E.2d at 955-58 , the supreme court held that when a police officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, passengers of that vehicle are lawfully seized, even if there is no individualized suspicion of criminal activity on his part at the time of the stop.

22010–2010
People v. Evans green
illappct · 1994
2 sentences

2000People v. Evans , 259 Ill.

2000People v. Evans, 259 Ill.

22000–2000
People v. Johnson green
illappct · 2010
1 sentence

2020At the time the officers stopped the vehicle for a traffic violation, “the officers had probable cause to believe that the driver had committed a traffic infraction and, therefore, lawfully seized both the driver and passenger of that vehicle.” Id.

12020–2020
United States v. Eddie Fryer green
ca7 · 1992
1 sentence

2020The Fryer court held “[t]hese are clearly the kind of specific, articulable facts that the standard contemplates and which warrant a search.” Fryer, 974 F.2d at 819 . ¶ 31 In this case, at the preliminary hearing Officer Filskov testified that at approximately 11:00 p.m. he stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation.

12020–2020
People v. Zeller green
illappct · 1977
1 sentence

1979(Accord, People v. Zeller (1977), 51 Ill.

11979–1979
People v. Smith green
illappct · 1978
1 sentence

1979App. 3d 952 , 385 N.E.2d 707 , the court upheld the warrantless search of an automobile, including the trunk, finding probable cause where the officer, who had stopped the vehicle for a traffic violation, smelled the odors of alcohol and marijuana emanating from the interior of the vehicle.

11979–1979

Where else courts name it

OH 61 (2001–2025) TX 18 (1992–2025) LA 17 (1973–2018) NY 13 (1985–2019) FL 12 (1990–2024) UT 10 (1989–2002) AL 10 (2009–2026) IN 10 (2006–2020) IL 9 (1979–2020) PA 8 (1989–2018) MA 4 (2001–2010) IA 4 (2008–2016) CA 4 (1977–2020) GA 4 (1983–2012) KS 4 (2009–2021) MO 3 (2000–2004) NM 3 (2006–2009) SC 2 (1994–2001) NE 2 (2005–2007) NC 2 (2023–2023) VA 2 (2003–2011) NH 2 (1985–2018) WA 2 (1991–2001)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check