Constitutional Issues for Trial Attorneys

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES FOR TRIAL ATTORNEYS

CASE LAW UPDATE OCTOBER 2014

Chapter 1: Fourth Amendment

Who may contest a search under the Fourth Amendment

1.  People v. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d 81, 927 N.E. 2d 1179 (2010). When passenger was detained pursuant to a valid traffic stop, he did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle in order to contest the search of the vehicle. Good discussion of the factors to consider when determining whether a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy.

Investigatory Stops/ Automobiles

1.  Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 188 L.Ed. 2d 680 (2014). Police officers were justified in stopping defendant’s vehicle based on the detailed information provided by a 911 caller.

2.  People v. Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, 989 N.E. 2d 192. Terry Stop. Anonymous tip did not have sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the stop of vehicle. However, the court looked at the factors under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and finds that the recovery of the gun was not fruit of the poisonous tree. Defendant’s flight broke the causal connection from the illegal stop.

3.  People v. Sanders, 2013 IL App (1st) 102696, 986 N.E. 2d 114. Terry Stop. Good discussion regarding the type of information required from an anonymous citizen necessary to justify a Terry stop. Also discusses and compares this information with information provided by an informant.

4.  United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 181 L. Ed. 2d 911 (2012). Attachment of a GPS device to a vehicle constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment and a search warrant is required.

5.  People v. Hackett, 2012 IL 111781, 971 N.E. 2d 1058. Traffic Stop for Improper Lane Usage, 625 ILCS 5/11-709. Police officer had a reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle for improper lane usage. Good discussion of the distinction between probable cause to arrest and reasonable suspicion to stop standards.

6.  In re Rafael E., 2014 IL App (1st) 133027, 14 N.E. 3d 489. Court held defendant seized for purposes of the 4th Amendment. Good discussion on the difference between a consensual encounter and a “seizure” under Terry.

7.  Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 173 L. 3d. 3d 485 (2009). Search-incident-to-arrest exception. Court narrows the reading of New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981). Court determined that search-incident-to-arrest exception did not justify the search because arrestees were already handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars. People v. Bridgewater, 235 Ill. 2d 85, 918 N.E. 2d 553 (2009). Il. S. Ct. follows Gant. Court indicates that it would be a “rare case” when an officer cannot effectuate an arrest in a manner eliminating any real possibility of access to the vehicle by the arrestee.

8.  People v. Bailey, 232 Ill. 2d 285, 903 N.E. 2d 409 (2009). Following a traffic stop for a seat belt violation, police officers have the right to conduct a warrant check on the driver and the passenger. The warrant check is not a search under the Fourth Amendment.

9.  People v. Harris, 228 Ill. 2d 822, 886 N.E. 2d 947 (2008). When a passenger in a car is lawfully seized, the police officers may request that the person provide identification and then use that information to conduct a warrant check so long as it does not unreasonably prolong the duration of the stop. The Court follows the reasoning in Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed. 2d 842 (2005), and partially overrules its prior decision in People v. Gonzales, 204 Ill. 2d 220 (2003).

10. Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 129 S.Ct. 781, 172 L. Ed. 2d 694, (2009). Traffic stop. The detention and questioning of the passenger was reasonable under the circumstances. The Supreme Court provides an in depth analysis supporting the detention and search of drivers and passengers following a legitimate traffic stop. See, also People v. Close, 238 Ill. 2d 497, 939 N.E. 2d 463 (2010).

11. People v. Hopkins, 235 Ill. 2d 453, 922 N.E. 2d 1042 (2009). Reasonable suspicion/Probable Cause. Good discussion of the steps/facts necessary to proceed from reasonable suspicion to probable cause.

12. People v. Maxey, 2011 IL App (1st) 100011, 949 N.E. 2d 755. Terry Stop. Good discussion of the type of evidence the police may use in establishing reasonable suspicion to detain. The court also held that is was proper for the police to briefly detain the suspect and transport him to the crime scene for purposes of immediate identification.

Search Warrants

1.  Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014). A search warrant is required to search the contents of a cellphone recovered pursuant to a search incident to arrest.

2.  People v. Chambers, 2014 IL App (1st) 120147, 12 N.E. 3d 772. Trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing reversed. Appellate court rejects People v. Gorosteata, 374 Ill. App. 3d 203 (2007) which held that a Franks hearing is never warranted if an informant appears before the magistrate.

Miscellaneous

1.  Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct., 188 L. Ed. 2d 25 (2014). Ct. limits its prior holding in Georgia v Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S. Ct. 1515, 164 L. Ed.2d (2006) (Consent given by one co-occupant is not valid in the face of the refusal by another physically present occupant). Randolph does not extend to situations where a co-occupant gives consent well after defendant has been removed from the premises. Randolph requires the objecting occupant be physically present.

2.  Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L. Ed. 2d 495 (2013). Use of a drug sniffing dog on defendant’s porch in order to investigate the contents of the house was an improper “search” under the 4th Amendment. The court held that the social norm of allowing visitors to enter on the property to knock on the door is not an invitation to conduct a search. The court also provides a good discussion of what constitutes the “curtilage” for purposes of the 4th Amendment.

3.  Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013). Nonconsensual blood testing in DUI cases. The court revisited its holding in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966). The court held that the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream does not present a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all DUI cases. The exigency must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances. The Illinois statute may be in conflict.

4.  Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031, 185 L. E. 2d 19, (2013). Detention incident to the execution of a search warrant. The detention of persons entering or leaving a premises that is subject to a search warrant under Michigan v. Sumner, 452 U.S. 692, 101 S. Ct. 2587, 69 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1981), is limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched and does not apply to a vehicle seen leaving the premises and stop approximately one mile away.

5.  Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050, 185 L. Ed. 2d 61 (2013). Dog sniff. The training and testing records of a drug-sniffing dog supported the trial court’s findings of probable cause.

6.  People v. Hyland, 2012 IL App (1st) 110966, 981 N.E. 2d 414. Investigative Alerts. Police officers’ reliance on investigative alert was not sufficient to establish probable cause for arrest. There was no testimony regarding the information that formed the basis for the investigative alert. The court relied on its prior decision in People v. Lawson, 298 Ill. App. 3d 997, 700 N.E. 2d 125 (1998) and Whitley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1971).

7.  Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 180 L. Ed. 2d 285 (2011). Good Faith Exception. Searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent that is later overturned, are not subject to the exclusionary rule.

8.  Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011). Exigent Circumstances. When police officers do not create the exigency by engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the 4th Amendment, the warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and allowed.

9.  Safford v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 129 S.Ct. 2633, 174 L.Ed. 2d 354 (2009). Juveniles. Strip search of student violated student’s 4th Amendment rights. However, Court held school officials were protected by qualified immunity because clearly established law did not show the search violated the 4th Amendment.

10. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed. 2d 496 (2009). Invalid Warrant. Police officers stop the defendant and search him based on an arrest warrant that is later found to be invalid. The Supreme Court held that when police mistakes leading to an unlawful search are the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the search, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, the exclusionary rule does not apply.

11. People v. Fitzpatrick, 2013 IL 113449, 986 N.E. 2d 1163. Petty offense. Defendant’s arrest for a petty offense justifies the police officer’s custodial search and recovery of narcotics. The Illinois Supreme Court follows the U.S. Supreme Court holding in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 121 S. Ct. 1536, 149 L. Ed. 2d 549 (2001). The Illinois Supreme Court also discusses the limited lockstep doctrine.

12. People v. Absher, 242 Ill. 2d 77, 950 N.E. 2d 659 (2011). Probationer. The warrantless search of probationer’s home was upheld. Defendant was sentenced to IPS and agreed to suspicionless searches as a written condition of his probation. The Supreme Court limits its holding to the facts of this case.

13. People v. Wilson, 228 Ill. 2d 35, 885 N.E. 2d 1033 (2008). Parolee. The warrantless and suspicionless search of a parolee is upheld where the defendant signs a consent-to-search of his person, property, or residence as part of his MSR agreement.

14. People v. Lopez, 229 Ill. 2d 322, 892 N.E. 2d 1047 (2008). Voluntary Accompaniment. Although the Court found the suspect voluntarily went to the police station, circumstances at the police station would lead a reasonable juvenile to believe that he was under arrest.

15. People v. Glorioso, 398 Ill. App. 3d 975, 924 N.E. 2d 1153 (2010). Knock and Announce. Court follows the reasoning in Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56 (2006). Failure to comply with knock and announce requirement is not grounds for suppression under the 4th Amendment.

16. People v. McDonough, 239 Ill. 2d 260, 940 N.E. 2d 1100 (2010). Good discussion regarding the police officers’ community caretaking function and the difference between the community caretaking and the third tier consensual encounters discussed in People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 857 N.E. 2d 187 (2006).

17. People v. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d 81, 927 N.E. 2d 1179 (2010). Attenuation. Good discussion of factors the court should look at in determining whether a statement is attenuated from the 4th Amendment violation. See, also People v. Salgado, 396 Ill. App. 3d 856, 920 N.E. 2d 1194 (1st Dist. 2009); People v. Scott, 366 Ill. App. 3d 38, 852 N.E. 2d 531 (2006).

Chapter 2: Identification Procedures

1.  Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716, 181 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2012). Identification/Judicial Screening Prior to Trial. The Due Process Clause does not require a preliminary judicial inquiry into the reliability of eyewitness identification when the identification was not procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by law enforcement.

2.  People v. Lerma, 2014 IL App (1st) 121880. Trial court erred in not allowing defense expert to testify regarding the fallibility of eyewitness testimony. (Court did not discuss Perry, supra.)

3.  People v. White, 395 Ill. App. 3d 797, 917 N.E. 2d 1018 (2009). Good discussion regarding the distinction between the 5th and 6th Amendment right to have an attorney present at a line-up.

4.  People v. Daniels, 2014 IL App (1st) 121171, 12 N. E. 3d 715. Court rejects defense argument that the lineup was impermissibly suggestive because defendant was the only person in the lineup who was also in the photo array. Court follows prior case law.

Chapter 3: Statements by the Accused

1.  People v. Murdock, 2012 IL 112362, 979 N.E.2d 74. Juvenile Statements. The Supreme Court gave a detailed analysis of the “concerned citizen” factor. Murdock noted that while the presence of a juvenile officer is a significant factor in the totality of the circumstances argument, the absence of a juvenile officer will not make a juvenile’s statements per se involuntary. Murdock, para. 49. The Murdock court also stated that the ability of a juvenile to speak with a concerned adult is not dispositive and just one of the many factors for the court to consider. Murdock, para. 54.

2.  People v. Patterson, 2014 IL 115102. Juvenile Statements. The Court discusses the role of a juvenile officer under Murdock . The Court also discusses what constitutes “a reasonable attempt to notify the parent or other person legally responsible for the minor’s care” under 705 ILCS 405/5-405(2). The Court reversed the Appellate Court and affirmed the trial court’s decision on these issues.

3.  Howes v. Fields, 132 S. Ct. 1181, 182 L. Ed. 2d 17 (2012). Miranda Custody. The Supreme Court rejected a lower court’s reasoning that questioning a prisoner is always custodial when the prisoner is removed from general population and questioned about events that occurred outside the prison. The Court provides an in-depth discussion of what “in custody” means for purposes of Miranda.