H Special Needs or Reduced Expectations of Privacy

LibraryIllinois Decisions on Search and Seizure (2017 Ed.)

H. Special Needs or Reduced Expectations of Privacy

Fink v. Ryan, 174 Ill. 2d 302, 673 N.E.2d 281 (1996) ("special needs" exception to Fourth Amendment warrant and probable cause requirements permit Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-501.6) provision requiring chemical testing of driver involved in personal injury or fatal motor vehicle accident). See also People v. Jung, 192 Ill. 2d 1, 733 N.E.2d 1256 (2000) (without referring to "special needs" doctrine, court upholds statute allowing results of physician-ordered blood or urine tests conducted in course of emergency treatment for injuries resulting from motor vehicle accident to be reported to law enforcement officials (625 ILCS 5/11-501.4-1)).

People v. Collins, 2015 IL App (1st) 131145, 42 N.E.3d 1 (Defendant was stopped by police while driving a blue Cadillac Eldorado after allegedly changing lanes without signaling and speeding. The defendant denied he failed to properly signal when changing lanes and asserted he did not know he was speeding. Defendant attempted to explain that he exited the highway, Interstate 290 (I-290), because his car was overheating and he was looking for a mechanic, despite having passed two gas stations after exiting the highway. Defendant also tried to explain that he was attempting to bypass traffic on I-290 by traveling westbound to get on the Indiana Tollway, even though he indicated to officers that his destination was to the east of where he had come from. Defendant tendered his driver's license and proof of insurance, and confirmed that he was on mandatory supervised release (MSR) due to a cocaine conviction. Defendant ultimately exited the vehicle after a request from the responding officer, which he initially refused, at which point the responding officer conducted a pat-down of defendant. Subsequently, the responding officer conducted a search of the vehicle, although conflicting testimony was presented regarding whether defendant gave consent to the search. Ultimately, the search of defendant's vehicle turned up 809.8 grams of cocaine in the truck of the car and defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to quash his arrest and suppress evidence, arguing that he did not know that there was cocaine was in the truck of the Cadillac and he did not consent to the search. The trial court denied defendant's motion, finding that the officer's testimony that defendant consented to the search was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT