Search And Seizure/ Motion To Suppress
2nd Dist. People v. Mikrut, No. 2-06-0376 (March 15, 2007) Lake County (BOWMAN) Affirmed
Trial court properly suppressed evidence, consisting of firearms, seized from defendant's bedroom after police accompanied former girlfriend into bedroom to retrieve her belongings over express objection of defendant. Pursuant to Georgia v. Randolph, police may not enter over express objection of defendant even with permission from former occupant.

Sentencing/ Driving While Suspended
4th Dist. People v. Kennedy, No. 4-05-0913 (March 13, 2007) Moultrie County (McCULLOUGH) Reversed
Trial court erred when it dismissed complaint charging defendant with driving while his license was suspended, a class 4 felony, in violation of Section 6-303(d-3) of Motor Vehicle Code. Because defendant, who had previously been convicted 8 times of driving while his license was suspended, was suspended at the time he was charged, because of statutory summary suspension, he was properly charged with violation of Section 3-6-3(d-3) and must serve, if convicted, a minimum of 180 days in jail.

Dui/ Evidence
1st Dist. People v. Claudio, No. 1-05-3336 (March 15, 2007) 4th div. (MURPHY) Reversed and remanded
Trial court erred when it held that State failed to lay properly foundation for admission of breathalyzer test merely because officer failed to properly register it in log book. Registry in log book requirement is ministerial in nature and is not prerequisite to admission of test results.

Motion To Suppress/ Search And Seizure / Controlled substances
4th Dist. People v. Roberts, No. 4-02-0613 (June 5, 2007) Brown County (MYERSCOUGH) Affirmed
After S.Ct. vacated earlier opinion and ordered reconsideration in light of People v. Caballes, decision by trial court to deny motion to suppress evidenced seized after routine traffic stop will be affirmed based on trial court's finding that officer had reasonable suspicion to ask for consent to search defendant's vehicle after he noticed that occupants of vehicle were acting strangely, saw that passengers had criminal record, and noticed strong odor from vehicle. Further, circumstances found by trial court shows that consent was voluntary; based on officer's testimony that he returned driver's identification and told him he was free to leave, and mentioned canine unit only after consent was given.

Speedy Trial Act
3rd Dist. People v. LaFaire, No. 3-06-0235 (June 8, 2007) Will County (HOLDRIDGE) (LYTTON, special concurrence, CARTER, dissent) Affirmed
Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed defendant's DUI trial because of violation of the Speedy Trial Act because: a) 160 day period began to run on date that defendant filed Speedy Trial Demand and not arraignment, and b) period is not tolled when defense counsel objected to State's motion for continuance even though defendant agreed to trial date.

Search And Seizure/ Ineffectiveness Of Counsel / Sentencing
2nd Dist. People v. Starnes, No. 2-05-0714 (June 12, 2007) Winnebago County (HUTCHINSON) Affirmed
Defendant was not deprived effective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not pursue motion to suppress evidence seized upon arrest of defendant after stop for routine traffic violation and consensual search of his person revealed large amount of cash. Police officer did not violate defendant's due process rights when she asked for, and was granted, permission to search his car, and found large bag containing individual packages of cannabis. In addition 4 1/2 year sentence in light of defendant's prior criminal record and eligibility for extended term, for possession of 30-500 grams of cannabis with intent to deliver, is not excessive.