individualized suspicion standard (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

individualized suspicion standard in Illinois

7 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2016 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
In Re May 1991 Will County Grand Jurygreen
ill · 1992 · cited in 4 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1998–2016
2 sentences

2016Id. ¶ 26 Concerning the individualized suspicion requirement, we provided, as an example, an investigation where an Asian man was alleged to have committed a rape.

2016Id. ¶ 26 Concerning the individualized suspicion requirement, we provided, as an example, an investigation where an Asian man was alleged to have committed a rape.

24

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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz green
scotus · 1990
2 sentences

2010The Court added that “ [detention of particular motorists for more extensive field sobriety testing may require satisfaction of an individualized suspicion standard.” Sitz, 496 U.S. at 451 , 110 L.

2010The Court added that “ [detention of particular motorists for more extensive field sobriety testing may require satisfaction of an individualized suspicion standard.” Sitz, 496 U.S. at 451 , 110 L.

31992–2010
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte green
scotus · 1976
2 sentences

1992Although the stops in both cases were found to be reasonable even without individualized suspicion, the Supreme Court in Sitz provided the following caveat: "Detention of particular motorists for more extensive field sobriety testing may require satisfaction of an individualized suspicion standard." ( Sitz, 496 U.S. at 451 , 110 S.Ct. at 2485 , 110 L.Ed.2d at 420 , citing United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976), 428 U.S. 543 , 96 S.Ct. 3074 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 .) Unlike the brief stops in Bartley and Sitz , prior to administering a breath test under section 11-501.6, the testing officer must obs

1992Although the stops in both cases were found to be reasonable even without individualized suspicion, the Supreme Court in Sitz provided the following caveat: "Detention of particular motorists for more extensive field sobriety testing may require satisfaction of an individualized suspicion standard." ( Sitz, 496 U.S. at 451 , 110 S.Ct. at 2485 , 110 L.Ed.2d at 420 , citing United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976), 428 U.S. 543 , 96 S.Ct. 3074 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 .) Unlike the brief stops in Bartley and Sitz , prior to administering a breath test under section 11-501.6, the testing officer must obs

11992–1992
People v. Adams green
ill · 1992
2 sentences

1992We found that an individualized suspicion standard was especially inappropriate because there are no outward signs of HIV infection. ( Adams, 149 Ill.2d at 348 , 173 Ill.Dec. 600 , 597 N.E.2d 574 .) Moreover, unlike section 11-501.6, the testing provision in Adams was not used to gather evidence for a criminal proceeding. ( Adams, 149 Ill.2d at 346 , 173 Ill.Dec. 600 , 597 N.E.2d 574 .) With respect to the intrusion on the offender's fourth amendment interest in privacy, it was significant that the testing provisions were not triggered until after a conviction, at which time the offender neces

1992We found that an individualized suspicion standard was especially inappropriate because there are no outward signs of HIV infection. ( Adams, 149 Ill.2d at 348 , 173 Ill.Dec. 600 , 597 N.E.2d 574 .) Moreover, unlike section 11-501.6, the testing provision in Adams was not used to gather evidence for a criminal proceeding. ( Adams, 149 Ill.2d at 346 , 173 Ill.Dec. 600 , 597 N.E.2d 574 .) With respect to the intrusion on the offender's fourth amendment interest in privacy, it was significant that the testing provisions were not triggered until after a conviction, at which time the offender neces

11992–1992

Where else courts name it

IL 7 (1992–2016) NJ 5 (1997–2006) PA 5 (1999–2025) NC 4 (2001–2018) WA 4 (2008–2020) MN 4 (1995–2015) IN 4 (2000–2004) AL 3 (1989–2012) NM 3 (1990–2010) OH 2 (1990–1996) WI 2 (2020–2020) DC 2 (1991–1992) KS 2 (2016–2016) AZ 2 (2003–2008) CA 2 (1987–2006)

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