49 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2026 17 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. McDonoughgreen2 sentences2025As our supreme court explained in People v. McDonough, 239 Ill. 2d 260, 268-69 (2010): “The United States Supreme Court first set forth the community caretaking exception in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 , 37 L. 2025See McDonough, 239 Ill. 2d at 272 (law enforcement must be performing some function other than investigating a crime for the community caretaking exception to apply). | 19 | 25 |
People v. Luedemanngreen2 sentences2017In 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court clarified the community caretaking exception is “analytically distinct from consensual encounters and is invoked to validate a search or seizure as reasonable under the fourth amendment.” Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d at 548 , 857 N.E.2d at 198-99 . ¶ 53 The Third District addressed the community caretaking exception with a similar set of facts in People v. Carlson, 307 Ill. 2017In 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court clarified the community caretaking exception is “analytically distinct from consensual encounters and is invoked to validate a search or seizure as reasonable under the fourth amendment.” Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d at 548 , 857 N.E.2d at 198-99 . ¶ 53 The Third District addressed the community caretaking exception with a similar set of facts in People v. Carlson, 307 Ill. | 11 | 17 |
Cady v. Dombrowskigreen2 sentences2025As our supreme court explained in People v. McDonough, 239 Ill. 2d 260, 268-69 (2010): “The United States Supreme Court first set forth the community caretaking exception in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 , 37 L. 2025As our supreme court explained in People v. McDonough, 239 Ill. 2d 260, 268-69 (2010): “The United States Supreme Court first set forth the community caretaking exception in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 , 37 L. | 3 | 8 |
People v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2011See People v. Mitchell, 355 Ill.App.3d 1030, 1033 , 291 Ill.Dec. 786 , 824 N.E.2d 642 (2nd Dist.2005) (noting that the community-caretaking doctrine "has nothing to do with consensual encounters; for, by their very nature, consensual encounters need no justification. 2011See People v. Mitchell, 355 Ill.App.3d 1030, 1033 , 291 Ill.Dec. 786 , 824 N.E.2d 642 (2nd Dist.2005) (noting that the community-caretaking doctrine "has nothing to do with consensual encounters; for, by their very nature, consensual encounters need no justification. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2017Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the seizure was reasonable and justified under the community caretaking exception because (1) Snow did not have an investigatory purpose and (2) his actions were taken for defendant’s safety. ¶ 59 Nonetheless, defendant cites the Fifth District’s opinion, People v. Robinson, 368 Ill. 2016Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the seizure was reasonable and justified under the community caretaking exception because (1) Snow did not have an investigatory purpose and (2) his actions were taken for defendant’s safety. ¶ 59 Nonetheless, defendant cites the Fifth District’s opinion, People v. Robinson, 368 Ill. | 2 | 4 |
Brinegar v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2021In People v. Jones, 215 Ill. 2d 261, 278 (2005), our supreme court found that an officer had probable cause to believe that an object was drug paraphernalia even though his belief “was not absolutely guaranteed to be correct.” The court explained, “ ‘Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are -8- more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part.’ ” Id. (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176 (1949)). 2020In People v. Jones, 215 Ill. 2d 261, 278 (2005), our supreme court found that an officer had probable cause to believe that an object was drug paraphernalia even though his belief “was not absolutely guaranteed to be correct.” The court explained, “ ‘Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part.’ ” Id. (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176 (1949)). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2021In People v. Jones, 215 Ill. 2d 261, 278 (2005), our supreme court found that an officer had probable cause to believe that an object was drug paraphernalia even though his belief “was not absolutely guaranteed to be correct.” The court explained, “ ‘Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are -8- more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part.’ ” Id. (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176 (1949)). 2021In People v. Jones, 215 Ill. 2d 261, 278 (2005), our supreme court found that an officer had probable cause to believe that an object was drug paraphernalia even though his belief “was not absolutely guaranteed to be correct.” The court explained, “ ‘Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are -8- more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part.’ ” Id. (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176 (1949)). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Dittmargreen2 sentences2012See People v. Dittmar, 2011 IL App (2d) 091112, ¶ 24 , 352 Ill.Dec. 403 , 954 N.E.2d 263 (the officer's stop of the defendant was justified under the community caretaking exception because the defendant's actions of pulling his vehicle to the side of the road and switching positions with the passenger gave the officer reason to believe that the defendant might need assistance due to a mechanical problem or other emergency). ¶ 15 The fact that Kaplan asked for defendant's identifying information does not necessitate a conclusion that Kaplan was conducting a criminal investigation, as an officer 2012Cf. Dittmar, 2011 IL App (2d) 091112, ¶ 28 , 352 Ill.Dec. 403 , 954 N.E.2d 263 (concluding that the officer's transmission of the defendant's vehicle information to the police dispatcher served the safety purpose of allowing the dispatcher to track the officer's location and activities, should the officer or a vehicle occupant go missing). ¶ 16 Because we conclude that Kaplan's stop of defendant was justified under the community caretaking exception, we need not address the State's contention that the stop was alternatively justified as an investigatory stop under Terry . ¶ 17 CONCLUSION ¶ 18 | 2 | 2 |
People v. McDonoughgreen2 sentences2010See Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d at 550-51 (collecting cases). -9- “that defendant was seized” when Brunnworth activated his emergency lights, “even if he did so for safety reasons.” Justice Myerscough concluded that although defendant was seized, the seizure was proper under the community caretaking doctrine. 395 Ill. 2010The State expressly concedes “that defendant was seized” when Brunnworth activated his emergency lights, “even if he did so for safety reasons.” Justice Myerscough concluded that although defendant was seized, the seizure was proper under the community caretaking doctrine. 395 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2021Similarly, in People v. Woods, 2019 IL App (5th) 180336, ¶ 34 , also cited by defendant, a witness’s complaint of a minor left unattended in a house was held to justify an entry by the police pursuant to the community-caretaking doctrine. ¶ 33 Defendant points out that, in both Hand and Woods, there was objective evidence that children were inside the houses who were potentially in peril. 2020Similarly, in People v. Woods, 2019 IL App (5th) 180336, ¶ 34 , also cited by defendant, a witness’s complaint of a minor left unattended in a house was held to justify an entry by the police pursuant to the community-caretaking doctrine. ¶ 33 Defendant points out that, in both Hand and Woods, there was objective evidence that children were inside the houses who were potentially in peril. | 1 | 3 |
Caniglia v. Stromgreen2 sentences2022However, in 2021, the United States Supreme Court held a police officer’s community caretaking duties do not create “a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home.” Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ___ , ___, 141 S. Ct. 1596, 1598 (2021). 2022Subsequent to the issuance of our disposition, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ___ , 141 S. Ct. 1596 (2021). | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Caballesgreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. LeFloregreen1 sentence2016The State argues that Officer Shannon’s actions “clearly” fall within the community caretaking exception, but cites no support for this assertion and acknowledges that this court has not previously addressed whether the community caretaking exception 2 We note that although no case dealing with the warrantless search of the digital contents of a cell phone, such as in Riley, has been decided in Illinois, in general, the Illinois Supreme Court “interprets the search and seizure clause of the Illinois Constitution in ‘limited lockstep’ with its federal counterpart.” People v. LeFlore, 2015 IL 11 | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Dittmargreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Floresgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Corderogreen | 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. Hand
green
2 sentences2023“Our courts have recognized that the community caretaking exception is necessary for the public’s protection when a police officer objectively and reasonably believes there is a need to seek information about an individual’s well-being.” Id. at 703 . ¶ 34 We conclude the officers’ warrantless entry into Linda’s home was reasonable under the community caretaking exception. 2019The Hand court rejected the notion that in such circumstances an officer is required to first employ “less intrusive methods,” such as requesting “the assistance of a child protection agency” or advising an individual to get an order of protection against another individual because that “would surely thwart the intent of the community caretaking exception to the fourth amendment” and would create a situation where police officers “would never be able to use reasonable judgment to enter a dwelling even if the circumstances warranted the entry.” Id. at 703 . | 4 | 2019–2023 |
People v. Lomax
green
2 sentences2021People v. Lomax, 2012 IL App (1st) 103016, ¶ 29 . 2021People v. Lomax, 2012 IL App (1st) 103016, ¶ 29 . | 4 | 2020–2021 |
People v. Bahena
green
2 sentences2021Emergency Aid Exception ¶ 46 At the pretrial hearing, the State argued that the officer’s actions fell “squarely within the emergency aid exception.” In its brief on appeal, the State argues that the emergency aid exception is an “example” of the community caretaking doctrine. 14 No. 1-19-0692 ¶ 47 Since a reviewing court may affirm a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress on any basis found in the record (People v. Bahena, 2020 IL App (1st) 180197, ¶ 25 ), it does not matter whether the emergency aid exception is a subset of the community caretaking doctrine or that the trial court did 2021Emergency Aid Exception ¶ 46 At the pretrial hearing, the State argued that the officer’s actions fell “squarely within the emergency aid exception.” In its brief on appeal, the State argues that the emergency aid exception is an “example” of the community caretaking doctrine. 14 No. 1-19-0692 ¶ 47 Since a reviewing court may affirm a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress on any basis found in the record (People v. Bahena, 2020 IL App (1st) 180197, ¶ 25 ), it does not matter whether the emergency aid exception is a subset of the community caretaking doctrine or that the trial court did | 4 | 2020–2021 |
People v. Luedemann
green
2 sentences2005This district is now officially at odds with itself on this point, for just recently we said that "the community caretaking exception allows an actual seizure where the seizure is reasonable under certain circumstances." People v. Luedemann, 357 Ill.App.3d 411, 417 , 293 Ill.Dec. 385 , 828 N.E.2d 355 , slip op. at 10 (2005). 2005This district is now officially at odds with itself on this point, for just recently we said that "the community caretaking exception allows an actual seizure where the seizure is reasonable under certain circumstances." People v. Luedemann, 357 Ill.App.3d 411, 417 , 293 Ill.Dec. 385 , 828 N.E.2d 355 , slip op. at 10 (2005). | 3 | 2005–2006 |
People v. Mikrut
green
2 sentences2023The only issue is whether Officer Liebich violated the Fourth Amendment by looking into the cabinet with the time. ¶ 51 In his motion to suppress, defendant maintained that, “since the actions of the officers, in entering the kitchen and looking into the kitchen cabinets, excluded any exception to the - 25 - 2023 IL App (2d) 210715-U requirement for a warrant, those actions constituted an impermissible search of the Defendant’s home.” In his opening brief, defendant argues that “this court’s holding in People v. Mikrut, 371 Ill. 2021Id. at 1150 . ¶ 30 On appeal, the State argued that the community-caretaking doctrine justified the officers’ entry into the defendant’s home. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
People v. Slaymaker
green
2 sentences2021Therefore, the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant resisted or obstructed the officers while they were engaged in an authorized act. ¶ 30 Although defendant relies on Slaymaker, 2015 IL App (2d) 130528 , that reliance is misplaced. 2021Slaymaker, 2015 IL App (2d) 130528, ¶¶ 17-22 . | 2 | 2020–2021 |
People v. Carlson
green
2 sentences2017In 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court clarified the community caretaking exception is “analytically distinct from consensual encounters and is invoked to validate a search or seizure as reasonable under the fourth amendment.” Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d at 548 , 857 N.E.2d at 198-99 . ¶ 53 The Third District addressed the community caretaking exception with a similar set of facts in People v. Carlson, 307 Ill. 2016In 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court clarified the community caretaking exception is “analytically distinct from consensual encounters and is invoked to validate a search or seizure as reasonable under the fourth amendment.” Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d at 548 , 857 N.E.2d at 198-199 . ¶ 53 The Third District addressed the community caretaking exception with a similar set of facts in People v. Carlson, 307 Ill. | 2 | 2016–2017 |
People v. Kowalski
green
2 sentences2016People v. Kowalski, 2011 IL App (2d) 100237, ¶ 9 . 2015People v. Kowalski, 2011 IL App (2d) 100237, ¶ 9 . | 2 | 2015–2016 |
People v. Damian
green
2 sentences2009See People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 546 , 857 N.E.2d 187, 197 (2006) (“Courts use the term ‘community caretaking’ to uphold searches or seizures as reasonable under the fourth amendment when police are performing some function other than investigating the violation of a criminal statute”); People v. Damian, 374 Ill. 2009See People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 546 , 857 N.E.2d 187, 197 (2006) ("Courts use the term 'community caretaking' to uphold searches or seizures as reasonable under the fourth amendment when police are performing some function other than investigating the violation of a criminal statute"); People v. Damian, 374 Ill. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Chisholm
green
2 sentences2006An example of a seizure upheld under the community caretaking exception is found in State v. Chisholm, 39 Wash. App. 864 , 696 E2d 41 (1985). 2006The court upheld the stop under the community caretaking exception, noting that “an individual’s interest in proceeding about his business unfettered by police interference must be balanced against the public’s interest in having police officers perform services in addition to the traditional enforcement of penal and regulatory laws.” Chisholm, 39 Wash. App. at 867 , 696 P.2d at 43 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Brooks
green
2 sentences2026The State responds that the traffic stop was supported by a reasonable suspicion of traffic violations and/or DUI, and alternatively, by the community caretaking exception. ¶ 33 “When a defendant files a motion to suppress evidence, he bears the burden of proof at a hearing on that motion.” People v. Brooks, 2017 IL 121413 , ¶ 22. 2026The State responds that the traffic stop was supported by a reasonable suspicion of traffic violations and/or DUI, and alternatively, by the community caretaking exception. ¶ 33 “When a defendant files a motion to suppress evidence, he bears the burden of proof at a hearing on that motion.” People v. Brooks, 2017 IL 121413 , ¶ 22. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Kentucky v. King
green
1 sentence2022Given that we - 15 - have found the emergency aid doctrine applied in this case and since we can affirm on any basis in the record, notwithstanding the circuit court’s reasoning, we need not address the community caretaking doctrine further. ¶ 64 Instead, as the Supreme Court has noted, “warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, to dispense with the warrant requirement.” King, 563 U.S. at 462 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Aljohani
green
1 sentence2022The court denied the motion and then sentenced defendant to 23 years in prison on count I. ¶ 20 Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because the police officers’ warrantless entry into the apartment immediately after the murder was not justified by the community caretaking exception, (2) the court erred in admitting evidence of his flight as circumstantial evidence of his guilt, and (3) the State’s evidence failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶ 21 The appellate court affirmed in a modified opinion. 2021 IL App (1st | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Relwani
green
1 sentence2022Defendant argues that Olson’s “alleged concerns would have dissipated at the time he saw [defendant’s] vehicle appropriately navigate the [drive-through], likely getting and paying for his food, [and] exit the drive-thru line with a fully operational vehicle, absent any additional observations of impairment, visible signs of vomit on the ground, or evidence of vehicular malfunction.” ¶ 23 Also, defendant observes that “there is some internal inconsistency in Officer Olson’s testimony.” At first, Olson testified that the woman in drive-through line told him “the person behind her was throwing u | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Patel
green
2 sentences2021Here, the State does not argue Officer King was engaged in a community caretaking role when he stopped defendant’s vehicle. ¶ 21 The State also cites People v. Patel, 2020 IL App (4th) 190917 , 163 N.E.3d 1282 , arguing “there is no difference between reasonable suspicion that justifies prolonging a traffic stop and reasonable suspicion that justifies a traffic stop.” However, in Patel, the defendant was stopped by a police officer for driving 19 miles per hour over the speed limit. 2021Here, the State does not argue Officer King was engaged in a community caretaking role when he stopped defendant’s vehicle. ¶ 21 The State also cites People v. Patel, 2020 IL App (4th) 190917 , 163 N.E.3d 1282 , arguing “there is no difference between reasonable suspicion that justifies prolonging a traffic stop and reasonable suspicion that justifies a traffic stop.” However, in Patel, the defendant was stopped by a police officer for driving 19 miles per hour over the speed limit. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Kolesnikov
neutral
2 sentences2020CONCLUSION ¶ 41 In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County is affirmed. ¶ 42 Affirmed. -15- 2020 IL App (2d) 180787 No. 2-18-0787 Cite as: People v. Kolesnikov, 2020 IL App (2d) 180787 Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County, No. 17-CF-1774; the Hon. 2020CONCLUSION ¶ 41 In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County is affirmed. ¶ 42 Affirmed. -15- 2020 IL App (2d) 180787 No. 2-18-0787 Cite as: People v. Kolesnikov, 2020 IL App (2d) 180787 Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County, No. 17-CF-1774; the Hon. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Queen
green
1 sentence2020Defendant argued that his initial detention by the police was not authorized under the community-caretaking doctrine (see People v. Queen, 369 Ill. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Biagi
green
1 sentence2017Accordingly, because I would affirm the circuit court's decision to grant the defendant's motion to suppress as well as the court's decision to grant the defendant's petition to rescind statutory summary suspension, I respectfully dissent from the majority's disposition in this case. 28 2017 IL App (5th) 150244 NO. 5-15-0244 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Marion County. ) v. ) No. 15-DT-03 ) CH | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. DiPace green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Ocon green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.