ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 5/114-12 (2026)

Motion to Suppress Evidence Illegally Seized

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 5/114-12) (from Ch. 38, par. 114-12)
    Sec. 114-12. Motion to Suppress Evidence Illegally Seized.
    (a) A defendant aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the court for the return of property and to suppress as evidence anything so obtained on the ground that:
        (1) The search and seizure without a warrant was
    
illegal; or
        (2) The search and seizure with a warrant was illegal
    
because the warrant is insufficient on its face; the evidence seized is not that described in the warrant; there was not probable cause for the issuance of the warrant; or, the warrant was illegally executed.
    (b) The motion shall be in writing and state facts showing wherein the search and seizure were unlawful. The judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion and the burden of proving that the search and seizure were unlawful shall be on the defendant. If the motion is granted the property shall be restored, unless otherwise subject to lawful detention, and it shall not be admissible in evidence against the movant at any trial.
        (1) If a defendant seeks to suppress evidence because
    
of the conduct of a peace officer in obtaining the evidence, the State may urge that the peace officer's conduct was taken in a reasonable and objective good faith belief that the conduct was proper and that the evidence discovered should not be suppressed if otherwise admissible. The court shall not suppress evidence which is otherwise admissible in a criminal proceeding if the court determines that the evidence was seized by a peace officer who acted in good faith.
        (2) "Good faith" means whenever a peace officer
    
obtains evidence:
            (i) pursuant to a search or an arrest warrant
        
obtained from a neutral and detached judge, which warrant is free from obvious defects other than non-deliberate errors in preparation and contains no material misrepresentation by any agent of the State, and the officer reasonably believed the warrant to be valid; or
            (ii) pursuant to a warrantless search incident to
        
an arrest for violation of a statute or local ordinance which is later declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalidated.
        (3) This amendatory Act of 1987 shall not be
    
construed to limit the enforcement of any appropriate civil remedy or criminal sanction in actions pursuant to other provisions of law against any individual or government entity found to have conducted an unreasonable search or seizure.
        (4) This amendatory Act of 1987 does not apply to
    
unlawful electronic eavesdropping or wiretapping.
    (c) The motion shall be made before trial unless opportunity therefor did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the grounds for the motion. If the motion is made during trial, and the court determines that the motion is not untimely, and the court conducts a hearing on the merits and enters an order suppressing the evidence, the court shall terminate the trial with respect to every defendant who was a party to the hearing and who was within the scope of the order of suppression, without further proceedings, unless the State files a written notice that there will be no interlocutory appeal from such order of suppression. In the event of such termination, the court shall proceed with the trial of other defendants not thus affected. Such termination of trial shall be proper and shall not bar subsequent prosecution of the identical charges and defendants; however, if after such termination the State fails to prosecute the interlocutory appeal until a determination of the merits of the appeal by the reviewing court, the termination shall be improper within the meaning of subparagraph (a)(3) of Section 3-4 of the Criminal Code of 2012 and subsequent prosecution of such defendants upon such charges shall be barred.
    (d) The motion shall be made only before a court with jurisdiction to try the offense.
    (e) The order or judgment granting or denying the motion shall state the findings of facts and conclusions of law upon which the order or judgment is based.
(Source: P.A. 97-1150, eff. 1-25-13.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 141 cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: People v. Ramirez, 2013 IL App (4th) 121153 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Ramirez, 2013 IL App (4th) 121153 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 5× “Defendant’s “Motion To Quash Arrest” ¶6 In May 2011, defendant filed a motion “pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/114-12 [(West 2010)],” requesting the trial court to “quash the defendant’s arrest.”
People v. Sims, 736 N.E.2d 1048 (Ill. 2000). · cites it 3× “The special concurrence concludes that we need not address whether defendant was arrested without probable cause because defendant did not actually move to suppress his confession as the fruit of an unlawful arrest and, consequently, never met his initial burden of establishing…”
People v. Parlier, 2023 IL App (4th) 220091 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). · cites it 6× “” 725 ILCS 5/114-12(a)(2) (West 2018). The statute, however, qualifies this remedy by providing, “The court shall not suppress evidence which is otherwise admissible in a criminal proceeding if the court determines that the evidence was seized by a peace officer who acted in…”
People v. Manzo, 2018 IL 122761 (Ill. 2018). · cites it 3× “Section 114-12(b)(1) provides that a court should not suppress otherwise admissible evidence if a police officer seized that evidence in good faith. Section 114-12(b)(2)(i) defines good faith: "(2) 'Good faith' means whenever a peace officer obtains evidence: (i) pursuant to a…”
People v. Carlson, 708 N.E.2d 372 (Ill. 1999). · cites it 3× “See also 725 ILCS 5/114-12(b)(1), (b)(2) (West 1996) (codifying Leon ).”
People v. Bass, 2021 IL 125434 (Ill. 2021). “¶ 22 Here, Bass made out a prima facie case that the stop was unconstitutional because his name check had nothing to do with resolving the red light violation at issue nor with its safe execution.”
People v. Pitman, 813 N.E.2d 93 (Ill. 2004). “Instead, defendant only alleged and argued that (1) police entered the premises without the consent of the owner or tenant; (2) police were trespassing when they came onto the property; and (3) there was no exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search.”
People v. Brooks, 2017 IL 121413 (Ill. 2017). “2d 540 (2003) ; 725 ILCS 5/114-12(b) (West 2016) ("The judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion and the burden of proving that the search and seizure were unlawful shall be on the defendant.”
People v. Burns, 2016 IL 118973 (Ill. 2016). “(2) ‘Good faith’ means whenever a peace officer obtains evidence: (i) pursuant to a search or an arrest warrant obtained from a neutral and detached judge, which warrant is free from obvious defects other than non-deliberate errors in preparation and contains no material…”
People v. Manzo, 2018 IL 122761 (Ill. 2019). · cites it 3× “The good faith exception has also been codified in sections 114-12(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/114-12(b)(1), (b)(2) (West 2008)).”
People v. ONE 1998 GMC, 960 N.E.2d 1071 (Ill. 2011). · cites it 3× “Compare 725 ILCS 5/114-12(a) (West 2008) ("A defendant aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the court for the return of property.”
People v. Lampitok, 798 N.E.2d 91 (Ill. 2003). “ts inception and in its scope under the totality of the circumstances; (B) a determination of what level of individualized suspicion is required for the probation search to be justified at its inception; (C) an evaluation of what level of individualized suspicion the officers…”
Show all 141 citing cases →
— 725 ILCS 5/114-12(a) — 8 cases
People v. ONE 1998 GMC, 960 N.E.2d 1071 (Ill. 2011). “Compare 725 ILCS 5/114-12(a) (West 2008) ("A defendant aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the court for the return of property.”
People v. One 1998 GMC, 2011 IL 110236 (Ill. 2011).
People v. Johnson, 2020 IL App (3d) 160675 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
People v. Ramirez, 2013 IL App (4th) 121153 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “Defendant’s “Motion To Quash Arrest” ¶6 In May 2011, defendant filed a motion “pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/114-12 [(West 2010)],” requesting the trial court to “quash the defendant’s arrest.”
People v. Ramirez, 2013 IL App (4th) 121153 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013).
— 725 ILCS 5/114-12(a)(1) — 4 cases
People v. Ringland, 2017 IL 119484 (Ill. 2017).
People v. Bujari, 2020 IL App (3d) 190028 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
People v. Ringland, 2017 IL 119484 (Ill. 2018).
People v. Williams, 2023 IL App (4th) 220481-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
— 725 ILCS 5/114-12(a)(2) — 4 cases
People v. Johnson, 2020 IL App (3d) 160675 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
People v. Parlier, 2023 IL App (4th) 220091 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “” 725 ILCS 5/114-12(a)(2) (West 2018). The statute, however, qualifies this remedy by providing, “The court shall not suppress evidence which is otherwise admissible in a criminal proceeding if the court determines that the evidence was seized by a peace officer who acted in…”
People v. Johnson, 2020 IL App (3d) 160675 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
People v. Parlier, 2023 IL App (4th) 220897-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
— 725 ILCS 5/114-12(b) — 69 cases
People v. Sims, 736 N.E.2d 1048 (Ill. 2000). “The special concurrence concludes that we need not address whether defendant was arrested without probable cause because defendant did not actually move to suppress his confession as the fruit of an unlawful arrest and, consequently, never met his initial burden of establishing…”
People v. Bass, 2021 IL 125434 (Ill. 2021). “¶ 22 Here, Bass made out a prima facie case that the stop was unconstitutional because his name check had nothing to do with resolving the red light violation at issue nor with its safe execution.”
People v. Pitman, 813 N.E.2d 93 (Ill. 2004). “Instead, defendant only alleged and argued that (1) police entered the premises without the consent of the owner or tenant; (2) police were trespassing when they came onto the property; and (3) there was no exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search.”
People v. Brooks, 2017 IL 121413 (Ill. 2017). “2d 540 (2003) ; 725 ILCS 5/114-12(b) (West 2016) ("The judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion and the burden of proving that the search and seizure were unlawful shall be on the defendant.”
People v. Lampitok, 798 N.E.2d 91 (Ill. 2003). “ts inception and in its scope under the totality of the circumstances; (B) a determination of what level of individualized suspicion is required for the probation search to be justified at its inception; (C) an evaluation of what level of individualized suspicion the officers…”
— 725 ILCS 5/114-12(b)(1) — 28 cases
People v. Burns, 2016 IL 118973 (Ill. 2016). “(2) ‘Good faith’ means whenever a peace officer obtains evidence: (i) pursuant to a search or an arrest warrant obtained from a neutral and detached judge, which warrant is free from obvious defects other than non-deliberate errors in preparation and contains no material…”
People v. Parlier, 2023 IL App (4th) 220091 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “” 725 ILCS 5/114-12(a)(2) (West 2018). The statute, however, qualifies this remedy by providing, “The court shall not suppress evidence which is otherwise admissible in a criminal proceeding if the court determines that the evidence was seized by a peace officer who acted in…”
People v. Manzo, 2018 IL 122761 (Ill. 2018). “Section 114-12(b)(1) provides that a court should not suppress otherwise admissible evidence if a police officer seized that evidence in good faith. Section 114-12(b)(2)(i) defines good faith: "(2) 'Good faith' means whenever a peace officer obtains evidence: (i) pursuant to a…”
People v. Carlson, 708 N.E.2d 372 (Ill. 1999). “See also 725 ILCS 5/114-12(b)(1), (b)(2) (West 1996) (codifying Leon ).”
People v. Manzo, 2018 IL 122761 (Ill. 2019). “The good faith exception has also been codified in sections 114-12(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/114-12(b)(1), (b)(2) (West 2008)).”
— 725 ILCS 5/114-12(b)(2) — 3 cases
People v. Harris, 2015 IL App (1st) 132162 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).
People v. Harris, 2015 IL App (1st) 132162 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).
People v. Aldridge, 2026 IL App (2d) 250295-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2026).
— 725 ILCS 5/114-12(b)(2)(i) — 7 cases
People v. Manzo, 2018 IL 122761 (Ill. 2018). “Section 114-12(b)(1) provides that a court should not suppress otherwise admissible evidence if a police officer seized that evidence in good faith. Section 114-12(b)(2)(i) defines good faith: "(2) 'Good faith' means whenever a peace officer obtains evidence: (i) pursuant to a…”
People v. Carlson, 708 N.E.2d 372 (Ill. 1999). “See also 725 ILCS 5/114-12(b)(1), (b)(2) (West 1996) (codifying Leon ).”
People v. Holmes, 2015 IL App (1st) 141256 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
People v. Manzo, 2018 IL 122761 (Ill. 2019). “The good faith exception has also been codified in sections 114-12(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/114-12(b)(1), (b)(2) (West 2008)).”
People v. Parlier, 2023 IL App (4th) 220091 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “” 725 ILCS 5/114-12(a)(2) (West 2018). The statute, however, qualifies this remedy by providing, “The court shall not suppress evidence which is otherwise admissible in a criminal proceeding if the court determines that the evidence was seized by a peace officer who acted in…”
— 725 ILCS 5/114-12(b)(2)(ii) — 1 case
People v. Holmes, 2015 IL App (1st) 141256 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
— 725 ILCS 5/114-12(b)(4) — 2 cases
People v. Allard, 2018 IL App (2d) 160927 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
People v. Allard, 2018 IL App (2d) 160927 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
— 725 ILCS 5/114-12(c) — 8 cases
People v. Jones, 2023 IL App (1st) 221311 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
People v. Wassell, 727 N.E.2d 413 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
People v. Tyler, 2023 IL App (1st) 181821-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
People v. Parker, 2020 IL App (3d) 160456-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
People v. Robinson, 2021 IL App (1st) 190023-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
— 725 ILCS 5/114-12(e) — 6 cases
People v. Byrd, 951 N.E.2d 194 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011).
People v. Lomax, 2012 IL App (1st) 103016 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012).
People v. Jackson, 906 N.E.2d 56 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009).
People v. Colyar, 941 N.E.2d 479 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
People v. Anderson, 917 N.E.2d 18 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.