Criminal Law

Court erred in granting motion to suppress evidence found during a strip search conducted pursuant to search warrant.  Because search warrant authorized a search of Defendant's person for narcotics, the strip search was within scope of warrant and did not violate 4th Amendment or Illinois Constitution's search-and-seizure clause or private clause.(SCHOSTOK and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Claimant, the Outlaws Motorcycle Club, appeals from circuit court judgment ordering that 3 black leather vests with attached Outlaws' patches be forfeited. Time frame in Section 40 of Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act to initiate forfeiture proceedings begins to run when trial court enters a conviction in underlying criminal proceedings.  Defendants pled guilty to aggravated battery and mob action, and agreed to forfeit their jackets. As State initiated forfeiture proceedings within 60 days of date that Defendants pled guilty, State's action was timely. Wearing vests facilitated Defendants' goal of intimidation, to be achieved by violent means, if necessary, to show their dominance to others.  Thus, court properly found that vests and patches were derivative contraband subject to forfeiture.(ZENOFF and SPENCE, concurring.)

Court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress statements he made during a police interview. Defendant was the subject of a federal use immunity agreement when he participated in the crime that resulted in a murder.  Terms of federal agreement stated that immunity would no longer apply if Defendant participated in any criminal activity of any kind without authorization.  Any belief that Defendant had that he was immune from prosecution when he gave his statement to county police detective was not reasonable under circumstances. Subject matter of interview was not related to subject matter of federal use immunity agreement.(O'BRIEN and SCHMIDT, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of reckless conduct for causing damage to a van owned by narcotics enforcement unit, when his vehicle collided with van in narrow driveway of apartment building where a confidential informant had arranged to buy drugs from Defendant. Evidence was sufficient to establish recklessness, as 2 officers testified that when Defendant saw van approaching his vehicle head on, he accelerated, causing collision. As Enforcement Unit suffered out-of-pocket expenses as a result of Defendant's conduct, it was entitled to restitution.  Remanded for calculation of imposing proper fine, fee, assessment and court cost in written order with statutory authority for each. (CARTER and SCHMIDT, concurring.)

Defendant, 13 years after his wife's death, was arrested for his wife's murder. Defendant had called 911 and claimed that his wife drowned in the bathtub. Trial court erred in granting defense motions to suppress Defendant's statements and exclude evidence seized from his home, after he consented to search. A reasonable person in Defendant's situation would have felt free to leave at any point during police questioning at police station that occurred 1 week after wife's death.  Defendant was free to leave, was never formally arrested, and was given Miranda warnings as a precaution; he was allowed to go home, after agreeing to return in the morning.(PIERCE and NEVILLE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated vehicular hijacking with a dangerous weapon, other than a firearm (AVH/DW), a Class X felony.  Defendant, while armed with a BB gun, approached a woman as she was getting out of her pickup truck, and took vehicle from her.BB gun was a common-law dangerous weapon of the third type. Trial court properly denied Defendant's Section 2-1401 petition for relief from judgment alleging proportionate penalties violation.  Defendant's mandatory life sentence imposed as an adjudged habitual criminal under Section 33B-1 of Criminal Code is affirmed. (GARMAN, FREEMAN, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)