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.
8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2016 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mapp v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2015In Brocamp, this court adopted an independent state exclusionary rule almost 40 years before Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), made the federal exclusionary rule applicable to the states. 2015In Brocamp, this court adopted an independent state exclusionary rule almost 40 years before Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), made the federal exclusionary rule applicable to the states. | 2 | 4 |
People v. Turnagegreen2 sentences2015This court recognized the Leon good-faith exception for purposes of the state exclusionary rule in People v. Stewart, 104 Ill. 2d 463, 477 (1984); see also People v. Turnage, 162 Ill. 2d 299 (1994) (applying Leon). ¶ 88 The Supreme Court extended Leon to a warrantless search for the first time in Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987). 2015This court recognized the Leon good-faith exception for purposes of the state exclusionary rule in People v. Stewart, 104 Ill. 2d 463, 477 (1984); see also People v. Turnage, 162 Ill. 2d 299 (1994) (applying Leon). ¶ 88 The Supreme Court extended Leon to a warrantless search for the first time in Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Stewartgreen2 sentences2015This court recognized the Leon good-faith exception for purposes of the state exclusionary rule in People v. Stewart, 104 Ill. 2d 463, 477 (1984); see also People v. Turnage, 162 Ill. 2d 299 (1994) (applying Leon). ¶ 88 The Supreme Court extended Leon to a warrantless search for the first time in Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987). 2015This court recognized the Leon good-faith exception for purposes of the state exclusionary rule in People v. Stewart, 104 Ill. 2d 463, 477 (1984); see also People v. Turnage, 162 Ill. 2d 299 (1994) (applying Leon). ¶ 88 The Supreme Court extended Leon to a warrantless search for the first time in Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987). | 2 | 2 |
Illinois v. Krullgreen2 sentences2015This court recognized the Leon good-faith exception for purposes of the state exclusionary rule in People v. Stewart, 104 Ill. 2d 463, 477 (1984); see also People v. Turnage, 162 Ill. 2d 299 (1994) (applying Leon). ¶ 88 The Supreme Court extended Leon to a warrantless search for the first time in Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987). 2015This court recognized the Leon good-faith exception for purposes of the state exclusionary rule in People v. Stewart, 104 Ill. 2d 463, 477 (1984); see also People v. Turnage, 162 Ill. 2d 299 (1994) (applying Leon). ¶ 88 The Supreme Court extended Leon to a warrantless search for the first time in Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987). | 2 | 2 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen2 sentences1989If this Court were to formulate a `good faith' exception to the federal exclusionary rule, the Illinois Supreme Court would be free to consider on remand whether the state exclusionary rule should be modified accordingly. * * * The Illinois Supreme Court found not only a violation of the Fourth Amendment but also of article I, § 6, of the Illinois Constitution, which also provides assurance against unreasonable searches and seizures. * * * Illinois Courts should be given the opportunity to consider in the first instance whether a `totality of the circumstances' test should replace the more pre 1989If this Court were to formulate a `good faith' exception to the federal exclusionary rule, the Illinois Supreme Court would be free to consider on remand whether the state exclusionary rule should be modified accordingly. * * * The Illinois Supreme Court found not only a violation of the Fourth Amendment but also of article I, § 6, of the Illinois Constitution, which also provides assurance against unreasonable searches and seizures. * * * Illinois Courts should be given the opportunity to consider in the first instance whether a `totality of the circumstances' test should replace the more pre | 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. Krueger
green
2 sentences2015Krueger, 175 Ill. 2d at 74-75 . 2015Krueger, 175 Ill. 2d at 74-75 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Lampitok
green
2 sentences2010In People v. Lampitok, 207 Ill. 2d 231 , 240-41 (2003), the court described Krueger’s holding as “[t]he narrow exception we have carved to the lockstep doctrine in the fourth amendment context.” Therefore, even if the court in Bolden intended to overrule Krueger’s holding that the state exclusionary rule is subject to the lockstep doctrine, the court appears to have repudiated that intent later. 2010In People v. Lampitok, 207 Ill. 2d 231 , 240-41 (2003), the court described Krueger's holding as "[t]he narrow exception we have carved to the lockstep doctrine in the fourth amendment context." Therefore, even if the court in Bolden intended to overrule Krueger's holding that the state exclusionary rule is subject to the lockstep doctrine, the court appears to have repudiated that intent later. -11- No. 2--08--0271 More striking (and more important), in Caballes itself, after the passage that stated that Krueger had nothing to do with lockstep at all, the court twice treated Krueger as indeed | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Weeks v. United States
red
2 sentences1996Ed. 652 , 34 S. Ct. 341 (1914), recognized a separate state exclusionary rule arising out of similar language in the Illinois Constitution); see also Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 6 L. 1996Ed. 652, 34 S. Ct. 341 (1914), recognized a separate state exclusionary rule arising out of similar language in the Illinois Constitution); see also Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 6 L. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Michigan v. DeFillippo
green
1 sentence2016The Krueger court stated that recognizing a good-faith exception to the state exclusionary rule would “provide a grace period for unconstitutional search and seizure legislation, during which time our citizens’ prized constitutional rights can be violated with impunity.” Id. -5- ¶ 23 C. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Exline
green
1 sentence1989After Gates , the Illinois Supreme Court decided People v. Exline (1983), 98 Ill.2d 150 , in which the sole issue was whether the allegations in an affidavit for a search warrant established probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.