People v. Cregan

10 Citing cases

  1. People v. Cregan

    2014 IL 113600 (Ill. 2014)   Cited 215 times
    Holding that constitutional-issue exception recognized in Enoch , a capital case, applies equally to noncapital cases

    The appellate court held the search valid under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the search warrant requirement. 2011 IL App (4th) 100477, 356 Ill.Dec. 537, 961 N.E.2d 926. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

  2. People v. Rowell

    2021 Ill. App. 4th 180819 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 16 times

    "Inventory searches are another exception to the general prohibition against warrantless searches." People v. Cregan, 2011 IL App (4th) 100477, ¶ 31, 961 N.E.2d 926. If this assessment of the likely circumstances in this case is correct (and we note that the State could have presented evidence to this effect if defendant had filed a motion to suppress), then the seized evidence would have inevitably been discovered, and no motion to suppress would have been successful.

  3. People v. Eyler

    2019 Ill. App. 4th 170064 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 22 times
    In People v. Eyler, 2019 IL App (4th) 170064, ¶ 53, the court questioned the conclusion reached in D.L., suggesting that such opinion arguably conflicted with our supreme court's holding in People v. Thomas, 198 Ill.2d 103, 113 (2001), i.e., that "[u]nprovoked flight in the face of a potential encounter with the police may raise enough suspicion to justifying the ensuing pursuit and investigatory stop."

    Given such justification, the search of defendant's person was a search incident to a valid arrest. See People v. Cregan , 2011 IL App (4th) 100477, ¶ 21, 356 Ill.Dec. 537, 961 N.E.2d 926. ¶ 64 While concurring on that narrow rationale and thereby following Little , I find myself in respectful disagreement with several points in the majority's decision.

  4. People v. Rebollar-Vergara

    2019 Ill. App. 2d 140871 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 10 times

    However, an alleged due process violation is a constitutional issue that, if raised at trial, is reviewable. See People v. Cregan , 2011 IL App (4th) 100477, ¶ 16, 356 Ill.Dec. 537, 961 N.E.2d 926. Under the circumstances of this case, we view the use of allegedly false or misleading testimony before the grand jury as an allegation of a due process violation worthy of consideration.

  5. People v. Evans

    2017 Ill. App. 4th 140672 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Cregan , 2011 IL App (4th) 100477, ¶ 21, 356 Ill.Dec. 537, 961 N.E.2d 926 (quoting United States v. Knights , 534 U.S. 112, 118-19, 122 S.Ct. 587, 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001) ). "It is well settled that not every encounter between the police and a private citizen results in a seizure.

  6. People v. Davis

    22 N.E.3d 1167 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)

    We agree with the State, a reasonable argument could have been made at the time, based on Illinois precedent, a warrantless search of a cell phone was valid pursuant to the search-incident-to-arrest exception. See People v. Dillon, 102 Ill. 2d 522, 529, 468 N.E.2d 964, 967 (1984) (search of wallet); People v. Cregan, 2011 IL App (4th) 100477, ¶ 26, 961 N.E.2d 926 (search of luggage). Riley obviously changed things, but to accept defendant's argument we would have to conclude counsel was ineffective for failing to predict the future and anticipate Riley.

  7. People v. Davis

    2014 Ill. App. 4th 121040 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)

    We agree with the State, a reasonable argument could have been made at the time, based on Illinois precedent, a warrantless search of a cell phone was valid pursuant to the search-incident-to-arrest exception. See People v. Dillon, 102 Ill. 2d 522, 529, 468 N.E.2d 964, 967 (1984) (search of wallet); People v. Cregan, 2011 IL App (4th) 100477, ¶ 26, 961 N.E.2d 926 (search of luggage). Riley obviously changed things, but to accept defendant's argument we would have to conclude counsel was ineffective for failing to predict the future and anticipate Riley.

  8. People v. Cregan

    968 N.E.2d 83 (Ill. 2012)

    People v. Carlos Dax CreganLower Court: 2011 IL App (4th) 100477, 356 Ill.Dec. 537, 961 N.E.2d 926 Disposition: Allowed.

  9. People v. Childs

    2017 Ill. App. 141774 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    People v. Gray, 378 Ill. App. 3d 701, 706 (2008) ¶ 29 Defendant concedes that although he requested a mistrial when the issue arose, he failed to raise the issue in his posttrial motion, and that ordinarily failing to do so does not preserve the issue and will result in forfeiture. See People v. Cregan, 2011 IL App (4th) 100477 ¶ 16. "The plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when (1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant's trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence."

  10. People v. Clark

    2014 Ill. App. 123562 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    He maintains that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him, thereby rendering the narcotics recovered from him inadmissible, and his conviction unsustainable. ¶ 10 The State initially contends that defendant failed to properly preserve this issue because he failed to raise it in his post-trial motion, and that this court should decline to review it. The State further claims that the doctrine of plain error does not apply. ¶ 11 Defendant concedes that he failed to raise this claim in his post-trial motion, but asserts, in pertinent part, that the forfeiture exception for constitutional issues that was recognized in People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 190 (1988), applies here because the denial of his motion to suppress raises a Fourth Amendment violation. People v. Cregan, 2011 IL App (4th) 100477, ¶ 16. The supreme court has since granted leave to appeal in that case, and determined that in the interests of judicial economy, constitutional issues that were properly raised at trial and may be raised later in a post-conviction petition are not forfeited by defendant's failure to raise them in a written post-trial motion.