Court Opinion

ID: 9742972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:23:33.118909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:38.108737
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SCHMIDT, specially concurring: While I concur in the result, I write separately because I do not concur entirely with the analysis. While it is clear that the officer was justified, under these facts in searching the vehicle for the protection of the officer and others at the scene, the majority states that, “Here, the officer was justified in asking defendant if he could search his vehicle for the protection of the officer and the others at the scene.” 358 Ill. App. 3d at 238. The United States Supreme Court had made it abundantly clear that it has rejected the notion that questioning, including requests for consent to search, must be related to the initial purpose for the police contact. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842, 125 S. Ct. 834 (2005); Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 161 L.Ed.2d 299, 125 S.Ct. 1465 (2005). To the extent that Gonzalez or other Illinois cases hold to the contrary, they are no longer good law. We are bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court on federal constitutional issues regardless of whether members of the court agree or disagree. Defendant consented to the search of the vehicle. The officer did not need “justification” to request consent to search. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 161 L.Ed.2d 299, 125 S.Ct. 1465.