two part standard in Illinois

2021People v. Woolley, 178 Ill. 2d 175, 198 (1997). ¶ 57 In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress a statement, we apply the two- part standard of review announced in Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996), and adopted by our supreme court in In re G.O., 191 Ill. 2d 37, 49-50 (2000).

2020July 1, 2018). ¶ 13 ANALYSIS ¶ 14 In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we employ the two- part standard of review adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996).

2021People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 542 (2006); People v. Allard, 2018 IL App (2d) 160927, ¶ 22 .

2016We find that LaGrange’s encounter with defendants began as a consensual encounter, and only rose to the level of a seizure after LaGrange had formed the reasonable, articulable suspicion required to perform such a seizure under the fourth amendment. ¶ 26 “In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we apply the two- part standard of review ***.” People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 542 (2006).

2023People v. Harris, 228 Ill. 2d 222, 230 (2008).

2022That is, while a “trial court’s findings of historical fact are reviewed for clear error,” a reviewing court “may assess the established facts in relation to the issues and may draw its own conclusion when deciding what relief, if any, should be granted.” People v. Harris, 228 Ill. 2d 222, 230 (2008). ¶ 51 Defendant does not dispute any of the trial court’s factual findings with respect to the motion to suppress.

2020“Its purpose, as [the supreme court has] consistently held, is to prevent arbitrary legislative classifications that discriminate in favor of a select group without a sound, reasonable basis.” Moline School District No. 40, 2016 IL 119704, ¶ 18 (citing Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367, 391 (1997)). ¶ 62 In assessing whether a statute violates the special legislation clause, courts apply a two- part analysis: “First, they must determine whether the statutory classification at issue discriminates in favor of a select group.

2020“Its purpose, as [the supreme court has] consistently held, is to prevent arbitrary legislative classifications that discriminate in favor of a select group without a sound, reasonable basis.” Moline School District No. 40, 2016 IL 119704, ¶ 18 (citing Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367, 391 (1997)). ¶ 62 In assessing whether a statute violates the special legislation clause, courts apply a two- part analysis: “First, they must determine whether the statutory classification at issue discriminates in favor of a select group.

2020If it does, then they must go on to consider whether the classification is arbitrary.” Moline School District No. 40, 2016 IL 119704, ¶ 23 (citing Big Sky Excavating, Inc. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 217 Ill. 2d 221, 235 (2005)).

2020If it does, then they must go on to consider whether the classification is arbitrary.” Moline School District No. 40, 2016 IL 119704, ¶ 23 (citing Big Sky Excavating, Inc. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 217 Ill. 2d 221, 235 (2005)).

2020People v. Hopkins, 235 Ill. 2d 453, 471 (2009).

2013People v. Hopkins, 235 Ill. 2d 453, 472 (2009). ¶ 12 In reviewing a ruling on a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, we apply a two- part standard of review.

2020“Its purpose, as [the supreme court has] consistently held, is to prevent arbitrary legislative classifications that discriminate in favor of a select group without a sound, reasonable basis.” Moline School District No. 40, 2016 IL 119704, ¶ 18 (citing Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367, 391 (1997)). ¶ 62 In assessing whether a statute violates the special legislation clause, courts apply a two- part analysis: “First, they must determine whether the statutory classification at issue discriminates in favor of a select group.

2020“Its purpose, as [the supreme court has] consistently held, is to prevent arbitrary legislative classifications that discriminate in favor of a select group without a sound, reasonable basis.” Moline School District No. 40, 2016 IL 119704, ¶ 18 (citing Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367, 391 (1997)). ¶ 62 In assessing whether a statute violates the special legislation clause, courts apply a two- part analysis: “First, they must determine whether the statutory classification at issue discriminates in favor of a select group.

2017Further, “[r]easonableness under -6- No. 1-14-3255 the fourth amendment generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause.” People v. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d 81, 89 (2010). ¶ 18 When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we apply a two- part standard of review adopted by the Supreme Court in Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996).

2017Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d at 88 .

2016City of Highland Park v. Kane, 2013 IL App (2d) 120788, ¶ 11 (citing People v. Wear, 229 Ill. 2d 545, 560-61 (2008)).

2013See id. at 560-61 .

2004A party attempts to prolong the voir dire when he asks irrelevant, immaterial, or repetitious questions"); see also Martinez , 131 N.M. at 755 , 42 P.3d at 860 (noting that with better organization of her voir dire , counsel could have asked the questions claimed to be precluded within the trial court's time limits).

2004A party attempts to prolong the voir dire when he asks irrelevant, immaterial, or repetitious questions"); see also Martinez , 131 N.M. at 755 , 42 P.3d at 860 (noting that with better organization of her voir dire , counsel could have asked the questions claimed to be precluded within the trial court's time limits).

2024Id. at 861 (citing Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49, 52, 60-61 (1993)). ¶ 66 Based on the legislative history and language of the Act, which mirrored the “sham exception,” the appellate court in Sandholm concluded that, in analyzing whether a defendant’s acts are in furtherance of government participation within the meaning of the Act, an adaptation of the two-part test for the “sham exception” is appropriate.