Illinois People v Horton

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by Rugerer, Apr 11, 2017.

  1. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,387
    70
    48
    Amazing what courts decide to rule sometimes. Never would have thought IL would rule this way.

    Cop suspects gun. Suspect goes in house. Cops search house to find felon with a gun.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...rts-just-made-decision-protecting-gun-owners/

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._courts_are_eroding_the_second_amendment.html
     
  2. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,813
    819
    113
    I about had to read those twice to believe it. Illinois appellate court holding that is mighty hard to believe. But I guess at some point even an Illinois judge or 2 gets a sense of reality in them.

    Nemo
     

  3. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,493
    600
    113
  4. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    I have not read the case, and I am not familiar with Illinois law, but this could turn on whether the license there is an affirmative defense or an element of the offense, as it does in so most other states.

    Actual case opinion here: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2017/1stDistrict/1142019.pdf

    Judicial restraint being articulated by Illinois judges surprised me.

    "As judges, we are stuck between a hammer and the anvil. On the one hand, we are ever mindful of, and horrified by, the level of gun violence that continues to plague the City of Chicago. We feel confident in saying that all members of the judiciary wish for reformative solutions. But we also are mindful of our limited role in a constitutional system. We cannot sidestep or disregard instruction from both the United States and Illinois Supreme Courts to achieve a specific outcome. When we hold that precedent dictates the result here, it is not because we are naïve, or “soft on crime.†On the contrary, it is because we must follow, not rewrite, the established law and the facts in evidence."

    Sounds like something Robert Bork could have written.
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Ok, explanation for the ruling.

    The probable cause was based on old Illinois law regarding possession of a weapon. That law was struck down as unconstitutional. Therefore, it could not have provided probable cause.

     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    The Supreme Court has a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule which would ordinarily apply, but Illinois rejects that and gives greater protection to criminal defendants.

     
  7. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    READ THIS!

    The dissent argues the officer did have reasonable suspicion for an investigatory Terry stop, because, although possessing a handgun could be a legal concealed-carry, it could be illegal if Horton did not possess a FOID card (as required by statute), and the officer could have stopped Horton to investigate whether Horton was carrying the gun legally. This rationale leads down a dangerous path. By way of analogy, it is also illegal to drive a car without a valid license. If an officer makes eye contact with another motorist, and that motorist then turns onto another street, can the officer execute a traffic stop to verify that the motorist has a valid driver’s license? In that situation, we would say the police officer needed to have reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that this particular motorist did not have a valid license. Officer Hummons had no articulable facts to believe that Horton was carrying a firearm without a valid FOID card. For that matter, in our hypothetical, the officer stopping the motorist had more reasonable suspicion than Hummons, because the officer saw the motorist driving while Officer Hummons had a hunch that Horton was carrying a handgun based on his momentary view of an object in Horton’s waistband. Hummons originally testified that he saw a chrome metal object but could not tell what it was, but later, at trial, stated he thought the object was the butt of a handgun. Not only are the different versions incapable of reconciliation, but the original, closer-in-time testimony cannot be ignored; as such, there are no specific and articulable facts that justify a Terry stop.

    The State theorizes that the officers’ approach and subsequent pursuit of Horton was justified based on “reasonable articulable suspicion,†under Terry. Id. But Terry does not apply as it pertains to investigative stops by police officers and not entry into a home absent probable cause. See People v. Wear, 229 Ill. 2d 545, 566-67 (2008) (entering residence “to merely conduct a Terry stop†violates fourth amendment). “Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts known to the officer at the time of the arrest are sufficient to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that the arrestee has committed a crime.†Id. at 563.

    The dissent would hold the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of reasonable suspicion and the officer’s pursuit of Horton was reasonable. Infra, ¶ 88. But “the totality of the circumstances,†is no substitute for the “reasonable suspicion†of criminal wrongdoing, based on “specific and articulable facts†from which a determination can be made that the police officer’s action was not arbitrary or harassing. Terry, 392 U.S. at 21. In Terry, the police officers watched the defendant and another man for 10-12 minutes on a street corner. Something about the two men did not “look right†and aroused suspicion. The officer followed them and when they stopped to talk to a third man, the officer approached and identified himself. These facts sharply contrast with this case. The officers in Terry had ample time to observe the suspects while the police officer here was riding in a moving car and saw Horton for a moment, and immediately decided to stop him. The defendants in Terry were “pacing, peering, and conferring†in front of some stores; Horton stood in a front yard of a house that Hummons thought was Horton’s home.
     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Exigent circumstances (they cover all the bases)
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    The dissent argues basically that the police should be able to detain anybody with a firearm to determine whether the possession is legal. Kind of scary.
     
  10. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,617
    1,705
    113
  11. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,813
    819
    113
    Thats because police are special and deserve to go home end of shift better than anyone else.

    Nemo