Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of home invasion, attempted 1st-degree murder, and aggravated discharge of a firearm. Section 103-2.1(b-5) of Code of Criminal Procedure is not facially unconstitutional, and did not violate equal protection. Court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his unrecorded statements to police. That statute previously applied only to various homicide offenses under amended, effective 1/1/2014, to include additional offenses, with application to these offenses rolled out over a period of time. Legislative history reflects a legitimate concern about the ability of law enforcement agencies to comply with the amendment if the additional offenses were all added at once. Legislators believed that, with implementation rolled out over a period of years, agencies would be better able to afford and provide necessary equipment. The rollout was rationally related to the goal to ease the burden on law enforcement agencies. (HUTCHINSON and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Motion to Suppress