-
691 N.E.2d 1186 Appellate Court of Illinois March 11, 1998 No. 3-97-0361
It is well settled, however, that an individual may consent to a search conducted without a warrant, thereby eliminating the need for probable cause and a search warrant. People v. Phillips, 264 Ill.
When the police rely upon consent as the basis for a warrant-less search, they have no more authority than they have apparently been given by the voluntary consent of the defendant. 3 W.
Ct. at 1804 (defendant’s consent to search his car included search of a small paper bag found in the car because he was informed that the officer suspected that he possessed narcotics); Phillips, 264 Ill.
-
909 N.E.2d 232 Appellate Court of Illinois April 30, 2009 No. 2-07-0088
The State requested that the trial court take judicial notice of the traffic ticket issued to Walker, the complaint for the search warrant, and the search warrant.
, why they asked to search the vehicle, and why they decided to get a search warrant and have the car towed.
Also, without Summers’ testimony that he originally thought there were drugs in the car, that the police ultimately found drugs in the car could have been purely coincidental.
-
650 N.E.2d 1038 Appellate Court of Illinois February 24, 1995 No. 1-93-1970
A search conducted without a search warrant is per se unreasonable unless it is a search conducted pursuant to consent, a search incident to arrest, or a search predicated upon probable cause where there are exigent circumstances which
The search incident to lawful arrest exception to the warrant requirement may be expanded when used in conjunction with the plain view doctrine.
Thus, a police officer may lawfully seize an item in plain view without a search warrant if he views the object from a place where he has a right to be and if the facts and circumstances known to him at the time he acts give rise to
-
604 N.E.2d 953 Appellate Court of Illinois October 27, 1992 No. 3-91-0777
The answer would be misleading and false if Trooper Lower understood the question to be ‘Is it legal to search without consent or a warrant?’
If Cardenas thought she was impliedly asking ‘Is it legal to search without consent or a warrant?’, the answer ‘Yes, we do it all the time’ would be misleading, false and perhaps coercive.” (Emphasis added.)
It is apparent from the record that Trooper Lower's response did convey the false impression that it was legal to conduct a search, even without consent.
-
425 N.E.2d 486 Appellate Court of Illinois August 17, 1981 No. 80-561
Roberts then went to the car and reached under the seat and found a plastic bag containing what appeared to be marijuana and two small envelopes. He secured these items in the squad car.
On appeal, the State concedes that the Wauconda police acted without probable cause in stopping the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger.
The State has conceded in its brief that the Wauconda police acted without probable cause in making a stop of the car, and after reviewing Officer Roberts’ testimony, we too conclude that his stop of the car was more in the nature
-
630 N.E.2d 141 Appellate Court of Illinois February 22, 1994 No. 2-92-0991
Kuzynowski said "police, search warrant,” and then Schirmbeck heard Kuzynowski hit the door with the battering ram.
Agos did not include anything in the affidavit for the search warrant about any danger in executing the warrant.
Exigent circumstances may encompass such considerations as danger to the police officers executing the warrant, or the uselessness of the announcement, or the ease with which the evidence may be destroyed.”
-
652 N.E.2d 1342 Appellate Court of Illinois June 30, 1995 No. 1-94-0502
In that case, police obtained a search warrant to search the first-floor apartment at 2712 W. Evergreen in Chicago.
There, police obtained a warrant authorizing a search of the "premises known as 164 Hill St., Long Island *** being a single family home.”
There, police obtained a warrant to search the second floor of an identified address. Police did not realize that two apartments existed on the floor.
-
914 N.E.2d 1143 Appellate Court of Illinois August 26, 2009 No. 2-07-0463
list without verifying that the warrant was still active.
The Search of the Car The sole justification offered by the State for the search of the defendant’s car was that it was a search incident to arrest.
The question then arose whether Belton permitted police to search a car even when the arrestee was some distance from the car at the time of arrest.
-
631 N.E.2d 872 Appellate Court of Illinois March 29, 1994 No. 2-92-1005
Defendant was escorted to the rear area of the car and was asked some questions. The officer opened the trunk and took defendant to the police car where he was placed inside.
Prior to the search of a car, the police must obtain a search warrant unless the circumstances fall within an exception to the warrant requirement such as probable cause. (United States v. Ross (1982), 456 U.S. 798, 809 , 72 L.
App. 3d 433 (police search of sealed box found in defendant’s trunk was unjustified in absence of warrant, was nonconsensual and not part of inventory procedure or on the basis of plain view where police had no firsthand knowledge
-
423 N.E.2d 1147 Appellate Court of Illinois June 23, 1981 No. 80-810
He filed motions to quash arrest and suppress evidence which aUeged that police arrested him in front of his home and searched his father’s automobile without warrant or probable cause, and sought the suppression of a revolver allegedly
Defendant left the car, explained that he was Reverend Nelson’s son, and was frisked, handcuffed, and placed in a paddy-wagon by police. The officers took defendant’s keys and searched his father’s car without asking his consent.
He did not see the police around his house, and did not see the police search his car or seize anything. He kept a gun registration card at home, but had forgotten to bring it to court. Officer Edward P.
-
217 N.E.2d 557 Appellate Court of Illinois February 18, 1966 No. Gen. 50,116
The warrant was executed on August 30th. When the officers were admitted into the apartment, they identified themselves as police officers, showed the search warrant to Jessie Pugh, and began their search of the apartment.
If the police themselves can obtain a warrant by alleging the receipt of information from an informer, without revealing that informer’s identity, the warrant can be no less valid where the informer himself appears before the court
In the execution of the warrant the person executing the same may reasonably detain to search any person in the place at the time: (a) To protect himself from attack, or (b) To prevent the disposal or concealment of any instruments
-
394 N.E.2d 739 Appellate Court of Illinois August 28, 1979 No. 77-420
However, all searches conducted without a valid search warrant are unreasonable unless shown to be within one of the exceptions to the rule that a search must rest upon a valid warrant.
However, just as a search which is reasonable at its inception may violate the fourth amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope, so may an investigatory detention exceed constitutional bounds when extended beyond what
Under the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, a search conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is per se unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated
-
2015 IL App (1st) 131600, 38 N.E.3d 182 Appellate Court of Illinois August 5, 2015 No. 1-13-1600Cited by 77 Unpublished
¶7 Ventura testified that police officers arrived a few minutes later, grabbed Burton, and put him in the squad car. The police told Ventura to go to the car to determine if anything was missing.
Akins called the police who arrived in minutes and took Burton into custody. Akins saw the police search Burton but did not see them recover an iPod. ¶9 The State showed Akins three photographs of the plant's parking lot.
Murchek performed a protective pat-down search of Burton and recovered a pocket knife and an iPod from his pocket. Murchek placed the knife and the iPod on the trunk of her squad car.
-
424 N.E.2d 823 Appellate Court of Illinois July 24, 1981 No. 79-546
On appeal, defendant now asserts for the first time that the police violated his fourth amendment rights when they arrested him in the bedroom where he was staying without either an arrest or search warrant.
there is either consent or exigent circumstances to justify proceeding without a warrant.
The consent form informed defendant of his constitutional right not to have the police search the premises without first obtaining a search warrant.
-
683 N.E.2d 154 Appellate Court of Illinois June 30, 1997 No. 1-95-3938
Police discovered the cocaine after entering the defendant’s car following his arrest for driving without a license.
Based on this evidence, the defendant initially argued that the cocaine should be suppressed because the officers did not have a warrant to search the car.
Thus, the police may search the arrestee and areas within his reach to prevent him from obtaining weapons or destroying evidence. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 23 L. Ed. 2d 685 , 89 S. Ct. 2034 (1969).
-
284 N.E.2d 440 Appellate Court of Illinois May 17, 1972 No. 56388
In Chimel, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the California courts on the basis that the search of the defendant’s home without a search warrant, following his arrest, based on an arrest warrant, was improper for the reasons
As to this issue, however, the court in Chambers stated most specifically: “[I]f an effective search is to be made at any time, either the search must be made immediately without a search warrant or the car itself must be seized
and held without a warrant for whatever period is necessary to obtain a warrant for the search.”
-
466 N.E.2d 250 Appellate Court of Illinois March 8, 1984 Nos. 83—75, 83—76 cons.
Kilfoy arrived at the house in a car driven by Matthew Praxmarer after the search was concluded but before the police had departed. An officer approached the car, said “Bryan?” and Kilfoy responded “Yes.”
The purpose of the requirement of particularity of description in search warrants is to prevent the use of general warrants which would give the police broad discretion as to where they may search and what they may seize.
Although defendants seem to suggest that the fact the executing officers were Chicago police officers may have contributed to the ambiguity in carrying out the terms of the warrant, we note that Illinois police officers may execute
-
416 N.E.2d 1197 Appellate Court of Illinois February 5, 1981 No. 79-1263
We also note that exigent circumstances necessitating prompt police action may arise after the police have had time to procure a warrant, and when this occurs the police may still act without a warrant. Cardwell v.
The occupants of the car were immediately placed under arrest. The car was then driven by police to the police station and searched there without a warrant.
One may contend that such is not true in the present case because defendant was already under arrest and the police had his set of keys to the car, and thus the police could have left, obtained a search warrant, and returned later
-
874 N.E.2d 940 Appellate Court of Illinois September 6, 2007 No. 2-05-1260
Defendant secondly argues that the police search of his car was barred by subsection 108 — 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (725 ILCS 5/108 — 1(1) (West 2004)), which provides as follows: “Search without warrant. (1) When a
[citation] provides that a search may only be made pursuant to a warrant or a valid arrest.
One such exception to the warrant requirement allows police to conduct a warrantless search incident to arrest under certain circumstances.
-
914 N.E.2d 679 Appellate Court of Illinois August 28, 2009 No. 1-08-2909
There, police officers went to the Chimel home with an arrest warrant for him, but without a search warrant. He was placed under arrest when he arrived home.
The so-called “automobile exception” was likewise dispensed as “simply irrelevant” because the facts did not present a situation where it was not practical for police to obtain a warrant to search the defendant’s car.
It is a quantum leap of logic to conclude that the vehicle was abandoned and, therefore, subject to search without a warrant or probable cause.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.