good morning everyone the first case on the docket this morning a strange number one two zero zero seven gender number two people of the state of illinois versus debacles council are you rea a chicago beach carrying an object that that officer and the identified as a handgun at the time it was illegal to carry one case load immediately accessible firearm in the state of illinois to the officer arrest the defendant the subsequent declaration that a subset of criminal statute is unconstitutional retroactively rendered defendants rest unlawful the good faith exception to exclusionary rule should apply the question in a case such as this arrested is only relevant for the probable cause analysis insofar as it is part of the totality of the circumstances that need to be considered in determining whether there is probable cause to believe and it was committing a crime will markable remedy it exacts a very high toll on the courts and on society it forces the courts to ignore relevant will liable evidence and it oftentimes allows a criminal to go free and that's why this court has said there is a remedy of last resort it is only to be used in those cases where it serves a deterrent purpose of deterrin an officer or the general assembly from violating a defendant's fourth amendment rights in the future and that's where the good faith exception comes in when an officer is relying on a good faith belief that his actions are authorized by law proved by this court the general assembly defined good faith in part is including when an officer arrests the defendant pursuant to a subset of criminal statute that is subsequently declared unconstitutional and that definition is unquestionably rocked because under those circumstances the exclusionary rule serves no deterrent value excluding the evidence in this case would not deter a similarly situated officer from making the exact same morass in the future and as the us supreme court observed it would be poor policy to deter an officer from acting in that way the officers job is to enforce the then valid criminal statutes of the state and we don't want officers selectively choosing which crimes to pursue based on their own personal beliefs that the statute might someday be declared unconstitutional under dissent said that deterring the general assembly of the legislature from passing bills that violate the citizens fourth and then rights was among the core concerns of the fourth amendment and that because application of create a extensive period of time during which a statute that violates citizens fourth amendment rights could be allowed to operate i'm sure why if life is the concern express in his own case any conviction or indictment pursuant to that statute would be vacated if the statute was unconstitutional and indeed there are circumstances where you don't even have to wait for  sakshi that defines criminal conduct when a criminal statute is basically unconstitutional and any conviction any indictment soon to that statute going back to its effect all that he would face exception not apply that is not the case all this court need do to find in the people's favorite here is the client to extend rare to substance criminal statutes that define criminal conduct because maintain that distinction then this court should overturn herrera the dissents in career or makes a persuasive case that because none of the fourth amendment considerations where the statute in question doesn't violate the fourth amendment on its face the general assembly similarly situated when it passed the statute question in people before i would not be deterred from passing a similar statute the statute itself is not unconstitutional nor would an officer acting in reliance on such stature in the future be deterred from from executing a search or seizure authorized by that declared unconstitutional they cannot be justly nord the people are asking the court to narrow the meaning of the of the term void of a new show on this case is is easier for example than the determination people be mcfadden they are this actually already been declared unconstitutional my question was whether the defendant had changed his status as as a convicted felon when he had not yet moved that mission in this case at the time of the arrest the officer was relying on a van valid statute not only at this point not to clear the statute on hunt's usual but first district president at the time at how the statute was it's to be found in circumstances such as those people be rare whether because this court holds that at the time of defendants the rest of the officer had probable good morning your honour's assistant cook county public defender eileen paul on behalf of the defendant david holmes if it may please the court this court should affirm because the trial court properly granted david holmes motion to suppress for lack of probable cause where the firearm statute which form the justification for his arrest and search was unconstitutional on its face and void avenues show both the trial court an appellate court here conducted a straightforward application of this court prior void have an issue of precedent as set forth in people first described and this court should reject the invitation from the state here to turn back the clock on those years of important protections for illinois citizens from legislative abuse of great fs periods of impunity for unconstitutional legislation under the void ab initio doctrine when a statute is held to be unconstitutional on its face it is as if the statute never existed it cases so here we do not use the balancing test from the exclusionary rule when we are considering void have an issue and that's because the rules have very different purposes paul before we get off the point the appellate court conceded it could be argued that se not apply the statute still might be a clickable to cases where the finding of unconstitutionality is as applied because the void have been your show dr in and the precedent applies only for unconstitutional on  face but to the extent that it's a statute like this one which is unconstitutional on its face were this court to overrule kora and reach the question of the exclusionary rule and the good faith exception then yes indeed under people versus krueger in the application of that statute to a statute that was found unconstitutional on its face would contradict krueger if you reconcile the  beyond the historical fact discussion board on an issue how you reconcile those one very important difference besides the obvious different statutes involved with the status offense in big fat and is the whole idea which  justice o'connor discusses in her dissent in illinois vs scroll the whole idea of you need to fight provide incentive for people to bring constitutional challenges and part of the remedy and the language avoid an issue part of the way to correct the wrongs is to bring these issues before the courts so they me address them and mcfadden you had a situation where the defendant there did have an opportunity to avail themselves of the courts to bring costs to tional challenges they could have moved to be kate their convictions they could have perhaps challenge them directly when they were initially prosecuted if they had failed to do so in this case we have the opposite incentive we have this matter coming up on a motion to suppress that is the earliest time you could and one of the earlier times you could bring a constitutional challenge and you also in mcfadden you don't have that issue have here of the unchurched defen where it is entirely possible that a statute which is unconstitutional may be used to arrest a person a good example would be something like a loitering statute or a traffic offense and then the prosecution supreme court apparently seems like they have exactly the same issue and writ that we have here and resolved it very easily and said that there was probable cause when police officer observed what was then a valid  of a valid statute and certainly some language about how important is for society to have police officers be able to rely i'm on the statutes on the box and you don't even mention respond to that very much and respond that ca was not relevant because it really provided no basis to distinguish between the deterrents and here the state has not answered the question despite their urging of a subset and proceed with the station they have not answered th question of why is the legislature would somehow it's important that we need to do tear them from passing unconstitutional procedural statutes why are those uniquely tempting to the legislature and the states argument only makes sense if we are to conclude that the legislature faces no similar temptation with respect to passing unconstitutional substantive laws as we detail on our brief the history shows quite the opposite both on the instant statute with concealed carry and we've pointed the loitering laws as you well know instance of passage of unconstitutional substantive was really true when we have people versus charles seven circuit that looks faith right the the police officers followed follow the law the question is what is this court to do when the law subsequently held unconstitutional and did and charles just last year was some sort of the police officers had probable cause and our state does not go lockstep with the federal courts because under all of illinois has followed the justice o'connor line of reasoning and which was adopted in people versus krueger that we do have that interest that it needs that institutional focus that is not sufficient simply to empty chair it's at the office or in the street we need to aim it at the legislators who pass the law is that distinction here that animates all of illinois cases and we would urge this court to adhere to that those are very important policies and the history of the concealed carry law along shows that for a long period of time illinois was the last state in the nation to amend its concealed carry laws to comply with definitive united states supreme court precedents there is a problem this is the incentive it does not create separation of powers issues because it merely removes that incentive for the legislature and promotes the orderly progression of the laws carra this is a remedy david holmes needs to be made whole it is the state who does not want to go back to the status quo ante they want to reap the advantage of an unconstitutional law by their historical fact argument and that is against all the policies behind void ever nischelle and but similar the even if this court overruled that there is no compelling reason to overrule people versus krueger as we stated that unconstitutional grace period is a problem and it's an effective way the suppression is needed here as a brevity just merely  hitting of your substantive conviction is not enough that is not good at that issue of providing that essential incentive for the uncharged offense and that is an important protection here  the state has also claimed that this court should limit these doctrines to statutes which authorize searches well the definition of probable cause is not an empty shell it requires that the officer look at the have probable cause to believe a person has admitted a crime every time the legislature passes a substantive criminal statute they have authorized the police to make an arrest and search based upon that statute there's really no way you can divorce those two concepts apart and and nor is there any merit to the state's argument that somehow or procedural statute presents a greater threat to liberty than a substantive criminal statute it's well settled the connection between the substantive law and actual in a sense on here if substantive law literally results in a person being arrested for conduct that is not a crime under the constitution where violation of a procedural statute may or may not be a question of actual innocence and again the state has presented no compelling reason for this court to overrule any of its or precedents they provide necessary protection for the citizens of the state against the threat of legislative grace periods of impunity they also correct the wrongs by providing persons with the means to bring unconstitutional laws to the attention of the court it's essential to have a remedy in order for that process to happen otherwise there are classes of laws that will simply be review and then balancing all of those factors not simply the deterrence of the police under the illinois constitution we have departed from locks that we do have different decisions and that is a positive thing it helps protect our citizens and helps ensure that laws which are unconstitutional under our constitution come to the attention of the court so i'm sure the state has provided no compelling reasons and analysis dictate against exclusion if the exclusion of evidence and this court should not abandon those traditional fourth amendment exclusionary rule in good faith analyses this case demonstrates why exclusion of evidence here and is not necessary to preserve the rights and interests of the citizens under those circumstances and indeed defendants in violation of the unconstitutional portion of w was vacated on the question here is whether relevant reliable evidence that defendant was also carrying a gun in public without a forward card is still valid  count should be excluded there is a valid charge offense in this case and the evidence of that offense is being excluded based on the court's subsequent invalidation of a different portion of  prior to more of the madigan people the at will are the first district for example had held that that ban was constitutional the fact that there were disagreements amongst the courts before its final resolution about the constitution ty of that statute does not mean that the general assembly was given a grace period during which unconstitutional statute was allowed to be in operation the statute was passed it was challenge don the tolerable grounds or violated the second amendment eventually this court agreed with that and how that is unconstitutional and the people agree that convictions pursuant to that unconstitutional in countries on saturday even ones final prior to question on whether there was a force and then in violation of all on because there was probable cause at the time of the arrest there was no fourth amendment violation consideration of the proper remedy exclusion or whether a good face exception should exist wasn't necessary to that case at all because because probable cause existed at the time of the ross and therefore there was no constitutional violation and indeed this court noted the distinction between those circumstances and the circumstances