Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Kankakee County State’s Attorney authorized the secret recording of a controlled drug purchase between a confidential informant and another individual. Davis was not the person to be recorded. When the informant went to the target’s home, he could not locate him. The informant walked to the porch of a different home and conducted a drug transaction with Davis, which was recorded by a hidden device. At the hearing on Davis’s motion to suppress, the parties agreed that the audio portion of the recording violated the eavesdropping statute. The circuit court granted the motion, finding that there was an illegal overhear conversation between Davis and the informant that took place before the drugs were seen in the video so that the video recording was the fruit of the poisonous tree that must be suppressed and the informant could not testify concerning the drug transaction.The Appellate Court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The informant was a participant in the conversation, so his knowledge of that conversation was not derived from the illegal audio recording; the video recording was made simultaneously with the audio recording and could not have been derived from the audio recording. Because neither the informant’s testimony nor the video recording was obtained as a result of the illegal audio recording, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply. The evidence was admissible. View "People v. Davis" on Justia Law

The 2012 Cook County Firearm Tax Ordinance imposed a $25 tax on the retail purchase of a firearm within Cook County. A 2015 amendment to the County Code included a tax on the retail purchase of firearm ammunition at the rate of $0.05 per cartridge for centerfire ammunition and $0.01 per cartridge for rimfire ammunition. The taxes levied on the retail purchaser are imposed in addition to all other taxes imposed by the County, Illinois, or any municipal corporation or political subdivision. The revenue generated from the tax on ammunition is directed to the Public Safety Fund; the revenue generated from the tax on firearms is not directed to any specified fund or program.Plaintiffs alleged that the taxes facially violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois Constitution concerning the right to bear arms and the uniformity clause, and are preempted by the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act and the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. The trial court rejected the suit on summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. To satisfy scrutiny under a uniformity challenge, where a tax classification directly bears on a fundamental right, the government must establish that the tax classification is substantially related to the object of the legislation. Under that level of scrutiny, the firearm and ammunition tax ordinances violate the uniformity clause. View "Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Ali" on Justia Law

The Illinois State Police obtained warrants to search a personal computer owned by Peoria Police Officer McCavitt, for digital evidence of two unrelated incidents: an aggravated criminal sexual assault and the unauthorized video recording and live video transmission of an unnamed victim. McCavitt was tried and acquitted of the alleged sexual assault before the unauthorized video recording was investigated. Following his acquittal, without seeking a new warrant, the Peoria Police Department searched a copy of the computer’s hard drive, uncovering evidence of the unauthorized video recording. The digital search also uncovered child pornography, which was not mentioned in the warrant. Based on the images, McCavitt was convicted of several counts of child pornography.The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the denial of McCavitt’s motion to suppress. Under the unique facts of this case, the search that uncovered child pornography did not violate McCavitt’s Fourth Amendment rights. The warrant at issue diminished McCavitt’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the images and videos he stored on his computer. When he was acquitted of the sexual assault, his reasonable expectation of privacy in his data relating to that offense was restored. However, the acquittal did not resolve the portion of the warrant that authorized a search for digital evidence of the unauthorized video recording. The post-acquittal computer examination was reasonably directed at obtaining that evidence and the child pornography found during the search was admissible because it was found in plain view. View "People v. McCavitt" on Justia Law

Taliani was convicted of first-degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2)) and aggravated battery with a firearm (12-4.2(a)(1)) in relation to the 1994 shooting death of his girlfriend and the shooting and injury of her mother. His direct appeal, two postconviction petitions, and a motion for relief from judgment were all unsuccessful. Taliani sought leave to file a second successive postconviction petition, in which he asserted that he has set forth a colorable claim of actual innocence based on “a change in the law that allows for a new affirmative defense [which] constitutes newly discovered evidence for purposes of an actual innocence claim.” An actual innocence claim must be supported by “newly discovered evidence” and evidence that Taliani took prescription medications that could cause serotonin syndrome was not “newly discovered.” Taliani argued that the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication based on unwarned side effects from prescription medication was not recognized in Illinois until 2006 and that this newly available affirmative defense constituted “newly discovered evidence.”The circuit court, appellate court, and Illinois Supreme Court denied relief. A new defense is a new theory; it is not new evidence. Taliani presented no newly discovered evidence, such as witness affidavits or other contemporary documentation, that would persuasively show that, at the time of the shootings, he was involuntarily intoxicated and, therefore, lacked the substantial capacity to either appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the law. View "People v. Taliani" on Justia Law

Johnson was convicted of armed robbery. The evidence at trial established that a 9-millimeter pistol and a BB pistol were discovered on the premises where he was arrested after the offense. The 9-millimeter was swabbed but the swabs were never tested for DNA. Johnson argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request that the swabs be tested. The appellate court panel granted him a new trial.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, affirming Johnson’s conviction. Johnson was unable to demonstrate prejudice for purposes of “Strickland” to establish ineffective assistance. It is unknown whether the swabs contain DNA sufficient for testing, let alone whether the results would be exculpatory. Because there is no exculpatory evidence to consider, any opinion that could be made with respect to prejudice would be advisory. Prejudice under Strickland cannot be based on “mere conjecture or speculation.” View "People v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The School Board sought equitable relief from Crest Hill ordinances creating a real property tax increment financing (TIF) district and attendant redevelopment plan and project, pursuant to the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-1). The Board complained that Crest Hill violated the TIF Act by including parcels of realty in the redevelopment project area that were not contiguous. An excluded parcel is owned by the utility company, is located outside the incorporated boundaries of the municipality and the boundaries of the redevelopment project area, and physically separates the parcels the municipality found to be contiguous for purposes of including them in the redevelopment project area.The circuit court granted Crest Hill summary judgment. The Appellate Court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the reversal. A public-utility-right-of-way exception to the contiguity requirement for annexation, found in the Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/7-1-1), does not apply as an exception to contiguity required by the TIF Act. This case does not involve contiguous properties running parallel and adjacent to each other in a reasonably substantial physical sense, wherein a public utility owns a right-of-way, or easement, to pass through one or both of the physically adjacent properties. View "Board of Education of Richland School District No. 88A v. City of Crest Hill" on Justia Law

In November 2014, Eighner filed a personal injury complaint (14-L-11428) concerning a November 2012 collision. Eighner paid the filing fee and caused summons to be issued. As the trial approached, Eighner decided to undergo surgery. In May 2017, the court granted a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under 735 ILCS 5/2- 1009(a), with leave to reinstate within one year. In April 2018, Eighner ’s counsel electronically filed a document under the number, 14-L11428, titled “Eighner ’s Notice of Refiling Complaint Being Reinstated.” Eighner paid no filing fee and no summons issued. Eighner ’s counsel received file-stamped copies of the documents, and a “Notice of Electronic Filing,” from the clerk. Defense counsel informed Eighner ’s counsel that he was unable to find the reinstated case on the court website. In October 2018, Eighner’s counsel notified defense counsel that he had tried to file the matter under a different number and had been advised by the clerk’s office to keep the same number. Eighner ’s counsel, unsuccessful in filing a motion under that number, filed a new complaint, number 18-L-11146, and paid a filing fee; a new summons was issued.The defendant unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the new lawsuit as untimely having been filed five months after the expiration of the one-year period. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court concluded that section 13-217 did not permit Eighner to file the previously dismissed action under its original case number, citing the phrase “may commence a new action.” Case 18-L-11146 was untimely and Eighner ’s April 2018 filing was not a new action. View "Eighner v. Tiernan" on Justia Law

In each of two automobile personal injury actions, plaintiffs moved for entry of a qualified protective order (QPO) pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), 110 Stat. 1936, and its implementing regulations (45 C.F.R. 160, 164) (Privacy Rule). Plaintiffs’ proposed QPOs would allow protected health information (PHI) to be released, subject to restrictions that nonlitigation use or disclosure of PHI is prohibited and PHI must be returned or destroyed at the conclusion of the litigation. State Farm, the liability insurer for the named defendants, intervened in each lawsuit and sought entry of its own protective order, which expressly allowed insurance companies to use, disclose, and maintain PHI for purposes beyond the litigation and expressly exempted insurers from the “return or destroy” requirement.In both cases the circuit court granted the plaintiffs’ motions. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting State Farm’s argument that property and casualty insurers fall outside HIPAA. Rejecting arguments concerning the requirements of the Illinois Insurance Code, the court stated that no Illinois law requires State Farm to use or disclose plaintiffs’ PHI after the conclusion of the litigation. The Cook County standard protective order is preempted by the Privacy Rule and the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011, does not apply to shield that order from traditional preemption. View "Haage v. Zavala" on Justia Law

Sproull filed a putative class action against State Farm, alleging breach of contract. State Farm allegedly depreciated labor costs in determining “actual cash value” (ACV) of a covered loss and concealed this practice from its policyholders. The policy does not define ACV. State Farm agreed to certify a question for interlocutory review: “Where Illinois’ insurance regulations provide that the ‘actual cash value’ or ‘ACV’ of an insured, damaged structure is determined as ‘replacement cost of property at time of loss less depreciation if any,’ and the policy does not itself define actual cash value, may the insurer depreciate all components of replacement cost (including labor) in calculating ACV?”The Appellate Court reformulated the question to address solely labor costs, rather than all components of replacement cost and answered the question in the negative. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, finding the policy ambiguous and construing it against the insurer. Illinois’s insurance regulations provide that the ACV of an insured, damaged structure is determined as the replacement cost of the property at time of loss less depreciation if any; only the property structure and materials are subject to a reasonable deduction for depreciation, and depreciation may not be applied to the intangible labor component. View "Sproull v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co." on Justia Law

In 1994, Evans was convicted of Class 2 felony manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance and Class X felony manufacture or delivery of more than 15 grams of cocaine. In 2018, Evans applied to the Illinois State Police for a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card. The Police denied the request, explaining that in Illinois, felons are prohibited from owning firearms under section 24-1.1(a) of the Criminal Code. The circuit court rejected Evans’s petition to have his firearm rights restored under section 10(c) of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act, reasoning that federal law, the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), barred Evans from obtaining a FOID card and that Evans had not established that issuing him a FOID card would not be contrary to the public interest. The Appellate Court affirmed.The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. If a convicted felon can establish the requirements of section 10(c)(1)-(3), he has his civil rights restored and may be granted relief that is not contrary to federal law, which includes a “civil rights restored” exception. Evans failed to meet his burden of establishing that granting him relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The court noted that nothing in the statute precludes Evans from filing another petition to remove his firearm disability. Evans now knows why his previous submissions were found lacking and can bolster his submissions. View "Evans v. Cook County State's Attorney" on Justia Law