People v. Parker

14 Citing cases

  1. People v. Contreras

    2014 Ill. App. 131889 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 20 times

    We disagree. ¶ 36 We find this court's decision in People v. Parker, 354 Ill.App.3d 40, 289 Ill.Dec. 941, 820 N.E.2d 1016 (2004), instructive. In Parker, police officers pulled a minivan over because it lacked a front license plate.

  2. People v. Stroud

    392 Ill. App. 3d 776 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 20 times
    In People v. Stroud, 392 Ill. App. 3d 776, 801 (2009), it was observed that "the federal courts have consistently held that evidence establishing a mere buyer-seller relationship is not enough to prove a conspiracy to distribute drugs and that the government must prove that the defendant agreed to commit a crime other than the sale itself, such as the subsequent distribution of drugs by the buyer."

    The United States and Illinois Constitutions protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const., amend. IV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 6. A warrantless search and seizure is per se unreasonable unless an exception exists. People v. Parker, 354 Ill. App. 3d 40, 44-45 (2004). Under the automobile exception, police officers may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle if they lawfully stop the vehicle and have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity.

  3. People v. Stroud

    No. 1-05-0683 (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 19, 2008)

    A warrantless search and seizure is per se unreasonable unless an exception exists. People v. Parker, 354 Ill. App. 3d 40, 44-45 (2004). Under the automobile exception, police officers may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle if they lawfully stop the vehicle and have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity.

  4. In re S.R.

    2018 Ill. App. 200941 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    These constitutional protections were designed to safeguard the reasonable expectations of privacy that people possess regarding their persons, residences, and belongings. People v. Parker, 354 Ill.App.3d 40, 44 (2004). "The 'essential purpose' of the fourth amendment is to impose a standard of reasonableness upon the exercise of discretion by law enforcement officers to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions."

  5. People v. Carpenter

    368 Ill. App. 3d 288 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 7 times

    A statute is unconstitutionally vague if its "`"terms are so ill-defined that the ultimate decision as to [its] meaning rests on the opinions and whims of the trier of fact rather than objective criteria or facts."'" People v. Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d 89, 103, 789 N.E.2d 734 (2002), quoting Stern v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., 179 Ill. 2d 160, 168 (1979), quoting People v. Burpo, 164 Ill. 2d 261, 266 (1995); People v. Parker, 354 Ill. App. 3d 40, 48, 820 N.E.2d 1016 (2004). However, a statute will not be rendered unconstitutionally vague merely because one can imagine hypothetical disputes over the meaning of certain terms.

  6. People v. Garcia

    2016 Ill. App. 143638 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    Pursuant to the automobile exception, officers may perform a warrantless search of an automobile if they lawfully stop the vehicle and have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of criminal activity or contraband, which the officers can seize. People v. Parker, 354 Ill. App. 3d 40, 45 (2004). The automobile exception is based on the reality that automobiles may be driven away, rendering it impossible for officers to obtain a search warrant.

  7. Mordi v. Zeigler

    Case No. 3:11-CV-00193-NJR (S.D. Ill. May. 12, 2020)

    Displaying a required plate on the windshield of a vehicle is against the law and thus gave Zeigler probable cause to stop Mordi's vehicle. See, e.g., People v. Parker, 354 Ill. App. 3d 40, 47-48 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)(noting that criminal defendant who displayed front license plate inside vehicle's front windshield was still in violation of § 413(a) and (b), and thus the officer had probable cause to initiate a traffic stop). See also Overton v. Schuwerk, No. 11-cv-3263, 2014 WL 3609934, at *3-4 (C.D. Ill. July 22, 2014)(holding that officer had probable cause for traffic stop based on violations of 413(a) and (b), where plaintiff admitted the front plate was missing and the rear plate had a clear cover).

  8. People v. Abramowicz

    2022 Ill. App. 3d 210407 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    "The scope of such a warrantless search extends to every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search." People v. Parker, 354 Ill.App.3d 40, 45 (2004).

  9. People v. Crump

    2021 Ill. App. 190134 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    ¶ 31 Police officers have probable cause to search a vehicle where the totality of the circumstances known at the time of the search, in view of their experience, would cause a reasonably prudent person to believe a crime occurred and that evidence of the crime is contained in the vehicle. People v. Parker, 354 Ill.App.3d 40, 45 (2004) (citing People v. Stout, 106 Ill.2d 77, 86 (1985); People v. Clark, 92 Ill.2d 96, 100 (1982); and People v. Erickson, 31 Ill.2d 230, 233 (1964)). The scope of that search "extends to every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search."

  10. People v. Varnauskas

    2018 Ill. App. 3d 150654 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 4 times

    Under the circumstances of this case, the probable cause that supported the search did not dissipate when the troopers decided to relocate the vehicle so that a complete and thorough search of the vehicle could be executed in safer location with better lighting. See id. ¶ 37 (a delay in searching a vehicle until it is relocated to a police station does not diminish the original justification for the warrantless search); People v. Parker , 354 Ill. App. 3d 40, 46, 289 Ill.Dec. 941, 820 N.E.2d 1016 (2004) (the justification for a warrantless search does not diminish upon relocation of the vehicle to a police station; holding that officers were not required to obtain a search warrant before moving a car a short distance prior to searching the vehicle). The troopers had probable cause to search the vehicle without a warrant