decision and find that jerry boson's motion to suppress his palm print should be granted to prevent further abuse the grand jury process to circumvent the probable cause requirement of the fourth amendment grand jury number april the legislature has conferred upon the grand jury the right to issue subpoenas but only against people whom the state's attorney is seeking an indictment or other people relevant to the matter being prosecuted by the student attorney and face no went before grand jury april one thousand five and asked for a john doe subpoena never even mentioning pipe's name she had to explain to the grand jury who boston was the ex boyfriend of a woman who had been murdered seven years earlier this establishes that the grand jury was not investigating his murder snow told the grand jury that the police had information that boston may be involved in her murder and that the police wanted pipes bostons palm print establishing that it was the police not the grand jury were investigating jerry boston it's it's no statement of the grand jury did not rise to the level of individual i suspicion that this court has held this required for the issuance of a grand jury subpoena for evidence of a  boyfriend that woman who had been killed in one thousand nine hundred eleven and that the police had information that he may be involved while this court has not specified the quantum level of evidence necessary to establish individualists individualized suspicion statement was not enough boston was the victim's ex boyfriend and the police had information that he may be involved in a grand day the first suggested that there must be a showing of unique knowledge pertaining to the defendant s involvement in the crime here there is no unique knowledge connecting boston to pipes murder his status as her ex boyfriend has nothing connect to connect him to her murder snow statement that the police had information that may be involved  fact connecting him to the murder no it does nor does it show any unique knowledge what was this information where did it come from was it reliable was a credible why wasn't this information presented before the grand jury and the fact that  power to further their own investigation as an end run around the fourth amendment and the probable cause for alarm and this was a cold case investigation the murder having occurred seven years earlier the police initially went to the state's attorney trying to get a warrant but were told that they didn't have sufficient probable cause so they went to ask a snow who is a random state's attorney who went before a random grand jury not one having anything to do with boston or pipes  of these factors show that this was an independent police investigation there was insufficient there was that the individual a suspicion that this court has said is required for this for instance such as you know and this was a simple opportunity by the police and that state to pick your palm prints when they did not have the probable cause they needed to do this as your question about the standard of individual a suspicion in the context of for our fourth amendment protecting our right to privacy and extended the right to privacy that was not in the united states constitution but this is a different situation where we also have a great deal of law regarding the lessened rights of privacy frank her sort of person can address that correct as you state this is somewhat of a question of first impression because we're not really dealing with fourth amendment here because we're talking about the hate right right see that is afforded to our citizens of illinois under the illinois constitution and the individual a suspicion standard comes out of that constitutional as such the cases dealing with parolees arrestees probationers of these is their fourth amendment cases which certainly this court can look at by analogy but there are no cases that i found that specifically deal with this individualized suspicion that's based on the heightened constitutional privacy requirement in illinois however when looking at these fourth amendment cases it becomes clear  is not relevant we're the court or the police are investigating a specific or particular crime certainly that first detects language in piper's is dicta we acknowledge that but the basis behind it is clear where you're talking about probationers rowley's or incarcerated inmates there is a strong government interest or some specific need greater than that of general law enforcement which this court has has consistently that the general need for law enforcement is not broader government interest or a special need that would diminish a person's expectation of privacy and that is what is a player in this case simply because jerry boston w incarcerated under on a completely unrelated matter did not diminish his fourth amendment rights with respect to the police investigation into papes murder and though we're not specifically dealing with the fourth amendment it but under the illinois constitution fingerprints palm prints appearance in the lineup handwriting voice exemplary these things that are lower invasion do you are accorded protection under the illinois constitution does it  the expectation of privacy analysis not when it's his incarceration and his status as a felon has nothing to do with the investigation into this particular crime he that of that case is dealing with this diminished expectation of privacy when you when it's not in relation to some broader government need then the defendant retains his rights under the fourth amendment or i would argue rights under the illinois constitution that this court laid out well county and that in the first just the first district and peppers acknowledged that that we are the state or the police are investigating a specific or particular crime the diminished expectation of privacy has no place in the court's consideration for these reasons that there are not further questions in august of one nine hundred ninety seven chicago police officers found the bloodied butchered body of tiny pipes they founders along over the bath tub a pool of blood of water right next to her body was a bloody palm print left in her own blood by the man that killed her police officers detectives evidence wall to save it for future analysis the detectives the investigators looked through that apartment they took photos there were no signs of forced entry and they obtained the phone records from the house o went cold a school five years before this brutal murder this court instructed law enforcement officers throughout the state of illinois as to how how standard for this type of a subpoena that there must be some showing not an elevated showing not a fight and showing some showing of individual eye suspicion and relevance  give instruction to that going could be done not through an exhaustive recitation of the investigation but it could be done through a brief summary of the investigation in april of two thousand and four that is exactly what the state's attorney the brain injury state's attorney did in this case when she went before the grand jury to the grand jury or albeit not mentioning tonya pipes name the defendant was dead victim's ex boyfriend at the time and he was serving a natural life sentence in the illinois department of corrections why does that to rise to a lone individual suspicion because he's been incarcerated it'll blouse the grand jury to be more suspicious of him being a convicted felon although not propensity evidence only has certain limited  ways of coming to an actual criminal trial there's absolutely no prohibition of it from being presented to the grand jury so as the ex boyfriend as a convicted felon as a habitual criminal serving a life sentence that grand jury could be more suspicious of the defendant in this case but the state's attorney didn't stop there when she informed him that he was the ex boyfriend that he was incarcerated serving a life sentence she told them and explained to them the relevance of that home print and why they needed to take on prints of the defendant she explained to the grange jury that although undoubtedly fingerprinted as a convicted felon it wasn't necessarily the case that someone was but i would i would argue to this court that by granting this subpoena they are engaging in the investigation it matters not that the state's attorney first brings it up the state's attorney the grand jury and the police have historically always had a close working relationship it's codified in the criminal code of procedure under article one twelfth mystery and that would this grand jury that granted the subpoena should seen the return of the him because had those prints simply been returned to the grand jury for a second for a day for a week they could have immediately thereafter and taken for testing and analysis so although a misstep in not returning them to the grand jury it's not a misstep that should warrant fourth amendment exclusionary relief in this case what the detective did was take it to the crime lab it was tested and it was found within a month if not earlier sooner that it matched those old friends taken from the defendant the right hand matched that bloody palm print but that wasn't the only involvement of the grain jury in the spring of two thousand and four because after they were the defendant's right hand matched that palm print they were ordered to the taking of his d n a as well which was done a bottle swab was taken it was given to the lab it was tested and it match matched the male d n a profile from tiny pipes vegetal swabs that were taken at the medical examiner's office historically the green jury has had many purposes which is to exonerate people under suspicion the other responsibility is to build evidence for probable cause and that's exactly what they were doing in this case when they initiated an investigation by bringing something on the record with a court reporter in front of the brain injury which after she made her for her showing through a brief summary she asked the green jurors you have any questions about through that brief not roll brief summary of the investigation investigation continuing after the d n a was found to match time his body detectives went down and the sp russians through that confession we learned at trial why tanya had to die she died over dispute over drug money psych drugs and drug money excuse me i misspoke that was amassed in the spring of two thousand and five a year later when the grand jury indicted the defendant for his ex girlfriends murder was overwhelming faced with this mountain of evidence the defen attorney prior to trial filed not one but two separate motions seeking to rock the granger a subpoena for the taping of his palm prints the first motion alleged but there was not sufficient facts presented to the great injury to issue that subpoena or his palm prints the trial court documents read the motions read the actual words that the attorney put on the record and gave to the grand jury before leaving and allowing them to decide whether to return a subpoena and bad trial court said yes there was enough there was a nuff fax he used the word particularize fax to cross cross the threshold that this late hour for law enforcement throughout illinois there was assuring independent excuse me individual a suspicion and rowland's through that brief summary a second motion was was written and argue again alleging an abuse of the granger e procedure for exactly justice tice just was inquiring about the non return the non return of these no palm prints from gerry bostons hands that was an abuse of the grand jury that should warrant the washing and all the evidence proves that quote there from a second trial court different from the first court heard that emotion read what was presented listen to each side's arguments and decided yes there was a mistake there was a misstep but there was no prejudice because heady simply taking those friends back to the grand jury for a second a minute a day that would have su prejudice here whatsoever the first district in affirming the defendant's conviction found that there was a willing evidence of the defendant's guilt in the murder of his ex girlfriend  jury and the documents are or transcripts that were being sought they're supposed to be relevant to the matter being prosecuted by the state's attorney cording to seven seven twenty five i al indictment yes absolutely and that's exactly what this court authorized in may will county ninety nine to ninety one susan decisions in ninety two this court said that for noninvasive evidence to be wants to talk about rogue states attorneys and rogue investigations and you know briefly talks about consulting a state's attorney that when they didn't see that they didn't think there was probable cause that this was an indirect and i think that was her language here today in her briefs this consulting conversation between the detective and and we'll just call it consulting state's attorney it cites to the two motions to quassia which start off with the language based on information and belief there's absolutely nothing in the record to establish that this happened what so ever but that aside let's just assume that it happened here let's assume that that what in the world is wrong with that detective is not a lawyer probably never read this court's opinion and will in brain injury excuse me one thousand nine hundred one will county there's not enough probable cause but guess what effective if you're only seeing palm prints are supreme court has told us that we only have to show some showing of individual eye suspicion and relevance and that can be done through a brief summary of the only issue before us now whether the sister he was doing something wrong or not but the question is the court said when there's not enough for a warrant then there would have to be some kind of showing and specifically in that case the court talked about an affidavit a statement under oath by the state's attorney and that didn't occur here it did not occur here but the state's attorney the name state's attorney presenting the request for that grand when they present statements before it fried you all up for a grand jury they are under obligations to be truthful ethical obligations obligations in your oath as a lawyer as a state's attorney and i absolutely nothing wrong about a grand jury state's attorney presenting evidence to the granger in this way it's article one twelve also says that the state's attorney between jury shelf hear evidence presented by the state's attorney it doesn't say only by affidavit it just says evidence in this case that was evidence that statements there are no hearsay requirements in the grand jury that require obviously no process emanation no hearsay requirements it allows for the free flow of information so that the grand jury can do what it is supposed to do when it has been delegated with these broad investigative powers to not only relieve someone under suspicion but to build probable cause to indict someone that is what was done in this case in the spring of two thousand and four leading up to two thousand and five and as to whether or not a convicted felon incarcerated serving a life sentence in the illinois department of correction as a reasonable expectation of privacy or if his status as a convicted felon serving a life sentence this point should not give great protections to jerry boston's jail cell than they should to someone out on the street it's an absurd argument and we ask you to do not we ask you in the following jury bostons conviction and second natural life sentence to tell to instruct wrong foresman officers that they can obtain reentry subpoenas for noninvasive evidence through this interaction of presenting continuing to present brief summaries of criminal investigations not for the taking of invasive evidence which would require probable cause before the noninvasive taking of such things as the defendant's palm prin is not a grand jury subpoena power is for its own use half of the state's attorney's use not for the police use it is to issue subpoenas where they are relevant to an investigation upon which the grand jury is involved if you take a step back from this case and look at the whole interplay about what happened police are investigating a cold case murder they go to try to obtain a search warrant perjury bisons on friends here tonight they go before a random grand matter being prosecuted those regular early days i note that there is no remedy spelled out in the statute for a violation of those so could this court just simply view those as don't argue that that alone is the reason for personal in this case that that should be looked at within the totality of the circumstances of how this is you know within teams and that should be a factor indicating that this was an independent police investigation was never returned to this grand jury if they had really been opening an investigation into this case then that those companies would have made and made returnable and returned to their grand jury moreover they were seeking a john doe subpoena if they were asking this grand jury to open up an investigation one would think they would mention the victim's name and it wouldn't be seeking a john doe subpoena i would argue that even if you didn't if you didn't find that there was individual basis should they still