Court Opinion

ID: 9707814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:21:52.543647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:38.224164
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, also specially concurring: I take issue with but one portion of the majority opinion. The majority holds that in interpreting the search and seizure provision in the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 6), this court “looks to the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the fourth amendment” to the United States Constitution. 185 Ill. 2d at 196. In light of this court’s recent opinion in People v. Krueger, 175 Ill. 2d 60 (1996), I believe this statement to be both unfortunate and incorrect. In Krueger, we noted that this court “has the authority to interpret provisions of our state constitution more broadly than the United States Supreme Court interprets similar provisions of the federal constitution.” Krueger, 175 Ill. 2d at 74. We then proceeded to analyze whether the search and seizure provision of the Illinois Constitution is subject to an exception for illegal searches conducted by law enforcement authorities in “good faith.” Concluding that such an exception would fail to adequately protect the right of Illinois citizens to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion, we explicitly rejected, as a matter of state constitutional law, the United States Supreme Court’s adoption of a good-faith exception to the federal constitution. Krueger, 175 Ill. 2d at 75. Our decision in Krueger thus firmly establishes the principle that article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution is to be interpreted in a manner independent of United States Supreme Court jurisprudence. Nevertheless, because I believe the search conducted in the instant case violated neither the United States Constitution nor the Illinois Constitution, I concur in the court’s judgment.