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.
5 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2004 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Steelegreen2 sentences2004See Steele, 155 Ohio App. 3d at 672 , 802 N.E.2d at 1137 ; accord D.L.C., 124 S.W.2d at 372-73; Martinez, 276 Kan. at 535 , 78 P.3d at 774 . 2004See Steele, 155 Ohio App. 3d at 672 , 802 N.E.2d at 1137 ; accord D.L.C., 124 S.W.2d at 372-73; Martinez, 276 Kan. at 535 , 78 P.3d at 774 . | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Kimlergreen2 sentences2004Here, again, the State's interests prevailed over the defendant's privacy rights. (footnote: 2) The Seventh Circuit, upholding a Wisconsin DNA testing statute similar to ours, relied on the special needs test: " 'The DNA Act, while implicating the Fourth Amendment, is a reasonable search and seizure under the special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement because the desire to build a DNA database goes beyond the ordinary law enforcement need.' " Green , 354 F.3d at 677 , quoting United States v. Kimler , 335 F.3d 1132, 1146 (10th Cir. 2003). 2004Here, again, the State's interests prevailed over the defendant's privacy rights. [2] The Seventh Circuit, upholding a Wisconsin DNA testing statute similar to ours, relied on the special needs test: "`The DNA Act, while implicating the Fourth Amendment, is a reasonable search and seizure under the special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement because the desire to build a DNA database goes beyond the ordinary law enforcement need.'" Green, 354 F.3d at 677 , quoting United States v. Kimler, 335 F.3d 1132, 1146 (10th Cir.2003). | 2 | 2 |
Musser v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Steele , 155 Ohio App. 3d at 672 , 802 N.E.2d at 1137 ; accord D.L.C. 124 S.W.2d at 372-73; Martinez , 276 Kan. at 535 , 78 P.3d at 774 . 2004See Steele, 155 Ohio App. 3d at 672 , 802 N.E.2d at 1137 ; accord D.L.C., 124 S.W.2d at 372-73; Martinez, 276 Kan. at 535 , 78 P.3d at 774 . | 2 | 2 |
In Re DLCgreen1 sentence2004See Steele, 155 Ohio App.3d at 672 , 802 N.E.2d at 1137 ; accord D.L.C. 124 S.W.3d at 372-73 ; Martinez, 276 Kan. at 535 , 78 P.3d at 774 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2004See Steele, 155 Ohio App. 3d at 672 , 802 N.E.2d at 1137 ; accord D.L.C., 124 S.W.2d at 372-73; Martinez, 276 Kan. at 535 , 78 P.3d at 774 . 2004See Steele, 155 Ohio App. 3d at 672 , 802 N.E.2d at 1137 ; accord D.L.C., 124 S.W.2d at 372-73; Martinez, 276 Kan. at 535 , 78 P.3d at 774 . | 3 | 2004–2004 |
Norman C. Green, Jr., Donald Lee, Glenn Turner, and Dennis E. Jones-El v. Gerald A. Berge and James E. Doyle, Attorney General
green
2 sentences2004Here, again, the State's interests prevailed over the defendant's privacy rights. (footnote: 2) The Seventh Circuit, upholding a Wisconsin DNA testing statute similar to ours, relied on the special needs test: " 'The DNA Act, while implicating the Fourth Amendment, is a reasonable search and seizure under the special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement because the desire to build a DNA database goes beyond the ordinary law enforcement need.' " Green , 354 F.3d at 677 , quoting United States v. Kimler , 335 F.3d 1132, 1146 (10th Cir. 2003). 2004Here, again, the State's interests prevailed over the defendant's privacy rights. [2] The Seventh Circuit, upholding a Wisconsin DNA testing statute similar to ours, relied on the special needs test: "`The DNA Act, while implicating the Fourth Amendment, is a reasonable search and seizure under the special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement because the desire to build a DNA database goes beyond the ordinary law enforcement need.'" Green, 354 F.3d at 677 , quoting United States v. Kimler, 335 F.3d 1132, 1146 (10th Cir.2003). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Hall
green
2 sentences2004Covering both bases, the court in Hall held the defendant would be no better off under the special needs test: "If a special need does exist, we must then evaluate the reasonableness of the intrusion; this involves a balancing analysis of the government's special need and the defendant's privacy rights." Hall, 352 Ill.2d at 548-49, 287 Ill.Dec. 736 , 816 N.E.2d 703 . 2004Covering both bases, the court in Hall held the defendant would be no better off under the special needs test: "If a special need does exist, we must then evaluate the reasonableness of the intrusion; this involves a balancing analysis of the government's special need and the defendant's privacy rights." Hall, 352 Ill.2d at 548-49, 287 Ill.Dec. 736 , 816 N.E.2d 703 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.