Court Opinion

ID: 9819139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:18:51.59944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:15.202255
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring: Although defendant, in his brief, includes a citation to the search and seizure provisions of the Illinois Constitution, he does not argue in any way that this provision affords him more protection than its federal constitutional counterpart, nor does he maintain that the state provision should be interpreted differently from the federal provision. Had he done so, those arguments would have been analyzed under this court’s recent decision in People v. Caballes, 221 Ill. 2d 282 (2006). Because defendant did not raise these state issues, this appeal raises solely a question of federal constitutional law, the resolution of which is controlled by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842, 125 S. Ct. 834 (2005). For that reason alone, I concur in the judgment of the court. JUSTICES McMORROW and KILBRIDE join in this special concurrence.