Opinion ID: 2052877
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Laches Should Bar Defendant's Motion to Suppress

Text: The State argues for the first time before this court that defendant's motion to suppress should be dismissed pursuant to the laches doctrine. The equitable defense of laches bars claims by those who neglect their rights to the detriment of others. Tully v. Illinois, 143 Ill.2d 425, 432, 158 Ill.Dec. 546, 574 N.E.2d 659 (1991). Application of the laches doctrine requires a showing of lack of due diligence by the party asserting the claim and prejudice to the party asserting the doctrine. Tully, 143 Ill.2d at 432, 158 Ill.Dec. 546, 574 N.E.2d 659. Like laches, the waiver rule serves the salutary effect of prompting parties to timely articulate arguments. See Haudrich v. Howmedica, Inc., 169 Ill.2d 525, 536, 215 Ill.Dec. 108, 662 N.E.2d 1248 (1996). An argument that could and should have been raised before a lower court, but was not, is waived. People v. Hawkins, 181 Ill.2d 41, 54, 228 Ill.Dec. 924, 690 N.E.2d 999 (1998). The State waived its right to argue laches by neglecting to assert the doctrine until it reached this court. Even in the absence of waiver, we would refrain from applying the laches doctrine in this case. The murder occurred in 1967. The State never charged defendant with any crime until 1992, although the State identified defendant as a suspect early in the investigation of Hale's death. Patently, defendant had absolutely no need to move to suppress items removed from his home unless and until the State lodged a complaint or indictment against him. We do not detect in the present appeal an instance of a party sle[eping] on his rights. Tully, 143 Ill.2d at 432, 158 Ill.Dec. 546, 574 N.E.2d 659.