Court Opinion

ID: 9734456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:35:20.815473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:48.808648
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, dissenting: Today’s opinion puts to rest the confusion that has animated our application of the “lockstep doctrine.” As the court explains, various methods for construing provisions of individual state constitutions have been adopted by state courts. One such method, the lockstep doctrine, has been defined as follows: “ ‘Under the lockstep approach, the state constitutional analysis begins and ends with consideration of the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the textual provision at issue. On this approach, federal rulings are regarded as having attained “a presumption of correctness” from which the state should be loathe to part. In other words, congruence with federal decisional law is assumed to be the norm, and deviation is for all intents and purposes impossible.’ ” 221 Ill. 2d at 307-08, quoting L. Friedman, The Constitutional Value of Dialogue and the New Judicial Federalism, 28 Hastings Const. L.Q. 93, 102-03 (2000). In light of the numerous times this court has deviated from federal decisional law (see, e.g., People v. Krueger, 175 Ill. 2d 60 (1996); People v. Washington, 171 Ill. 2d 475 (1996)), it is clear that this court has not truly followed in “lockstep” with the United States Supreme Court. I therefore agree with the court when it states that “it is an overstatement to describe our approach as being in strict lockstep with the Supreme Court.” 221 Ill. 2d at 309. Like my colleagues in the majority, I believe that the method this court has been applying throughout the years has been a form of the “interstitial approach.” As the court explains, under this approach, the court first looks to whether the right being asserted is protected under the federal constitution. If it is, then the state constitutional claim is not reached. If it is not, then the state constitution is examined. 221 Ill. 2d at 309, quoting State v. Gomez, 122 N.M. 777, 783, 932 P.2d 1, 7 (1997). This approach “acknowledges the United States Constitution as the basic protector of fundamental liberties and treats the federal declaration as the lowest common denominator in protecting those liberties.” S. Pollock, State Constitutions as Separate Sources of Fundamental Rights, 35 Rutgers L. Rev. 707, 718 (1983). A review of the instances in which this court has departed from federal law reveals that this court has done so for reasons that are commonly associated with this approach. A state court utilizing the interstitial approach “may diverge from federal precedent for three reasons: a flawed federal analysis, structural differences between state and federal government, or distinctive state characteristics.” Gomez, 122 N.M. at 783, 932 P.2d at 7. In Krueger, the court implied strongly that it was departing from federal law because it believed the United States Supreme Court’s analysis to be flawed. Krueger, 175 Ill. 2d at 72-73. In Washington, the court implied that it was necessary to recognize a constitutional basis in state habeas corpus jurisprudence for addressing actual innocence claims because federal law did not provide a forum for such a claim — this, of course, implicates the differences between the state and federal systems. Washington, 171 Ill. 2d at 489. Notwithstanding my agreement with the court’s conclusion that we are not a truly “lockstep” court, I believe this case to be one which necessitates our divergence from federal precedent. In my view, Justice Ginsburg’s dissent reveals several serious flaws in the Court’s decision. She points out that the Court’s decision “diminishes the Fourth Amendment’s force” by abandoning the critical step of the Terry analysis. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 421, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842, 855, 125 S. Ct. 834, 845 (2005) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Souter, J.). Justice Ginsburg also criticizes the fact that the decision “undermines” the Court’s “situation-sensitive balancing of Fourth Amendment interests in other contexts.” Caballes, 543 U.S. at 423, 160 L. Ed. 2d at 856, 125 S. Ct. at 846. These criticisms are apt and compel me to the conclusion that divergence from the Supreme Court is necessary under the circumstances presented at bar. I therefore would hold that the police action in this case violated defendant’s right against unreasonable searches under article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution when, without cause to suspect wrongdoing, they conducted a dog sniff of his vehicle. In light of my position, I need not reach, nor do I express any view on, the question of whether the unreasonable invasion of privacy clause in the same section of our constitution is implicated in this case. JUSTICES McMORROW and KILBRIDE join in this dissent.