Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mosby, an RN, filed a class-action suit, alleging that she used a medication dispensing system and its finger-scan device, distributed and marketed by BD, to provide patient care, i.e., to authenticate her identity and access controlled and restricted material. Mosby alleged that BD violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14/15(a), (b), (d)) by using the scanning device to collect, use, and/or store her finger scan data without complying with the Act’s notice and consent provisions and by disclosing her purported biometric data to third parties without first obtaining her written consent. BD argued that the finger scan data restricted access to protected health information and medication and was used for health care treatment and operations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), 45 C.F.R. 164.501, specifically excluded from the scope of the Act.On interlocutory appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the Act’s exclusion of ‘information collected, used, or stored for health care treatment, payment, or operations under” HIPAA applies to biometric information of health care workers (as opposed to patients) collected, used or stored for health care treatment, payment or operations under HIPAA. Finger-scan information collected by a health care provider from its employees falls within that exclusion when the employee’s finger-scan information is used for purposes related to ‘health care,’ ‘treatment,’ ‘payment,’ or ‘operations’ as defined by HIPAA. View "Mosby v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital" on Justia Law

Guiracocha and his son, Cristopher, filed an uninsured motorist (UM) claim against Direct Auto, stemming from a hit-and-run incident where 14-year-old Cristopher was struck by a vehicle while riding his bicycle. They asserted Fredy was the named insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by Direct Auto and that UM coverage applied to Cristopher based on his status as a “relative” under the policy. Direct Auto denied coverage because Cristopher was not an occupant of a covered vehicle at the time of the accident and sought a declaratory judgment. The circuit court granted Direct Auto summary judgment.The appellate court reversed, holding that a provision in an automobile insurance policy that limits UM coverage to insureds occupying an insured automobile violates the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143a). The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Section 143a states that an insurance policy cannot be “renewed, delivered, or issued for delivery” in Illinois unless it provides coverage to “any person” for injuries “arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle.” A bicyclist injured by an uninsured motorist vehicle is a “person” who suffered injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of “a motor vehicle.” The injured person’s status as an occupant of a vehicle is irrelevant. View "Galarza v. Direct Auto Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Sergeant Albee saw a truck pulling a partially loaded car hauler semitrailer with no driver’s side markings indicating the company name or the DOT number required by federal regulations. The hauler was only partially loaded, which Albee found unusual; no registration was displayed on the trailer. During the subsequent traffic stop, Webb displayed “a state of panic” and had no organized documentation. He volunteered that he had been stopped several times and that the vehicle had been checked for drugs. Albee found that statement “bizarre.” Webb gave Albee a cab card that was Illinois apportioned, but the displayed license plate was from California. Albee performed a free air sniff test with his canine partner. After a positive alert on the trailer, a search revealed an unlicensed firearm and 2736 grams of cannabis–street value $40,000.Webb was convicted of cannabis trafficking, possession of cannabis with intent to deliver, and possession of cannabis. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Webb’s argument that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the cannabis on the basis that the positive canine alert, without more, was not sufficient to establish probable cause following changes to Illinois cannabis legislation. Albee relied on more than the dog sniff. The totality of the facts and circumstances justified a reasonable person in believing that the vehicle contained contraband or evidence of criminal activity. View "People v. Webb" on Justia Law

Mark executed powers of attorney appointing his spouse, Dorothy, as his agent for health care and property. He also executed a will. Mark revoked the will and executed a new one as he was dying from cancer 17 years later. Mark’s sisters contested the new will because it changed Mark’s disposition of his interests in certain family businesses to their detriment and to the benefit of Dorothy. They allege that Dorothy, as the primary beneficiary, exerted undue influence over Mark to procure the preparation of the new will. Mark's wealth had come from a family business, founded by their father; Mark and Dorothy were married 24 years and had no children.The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed judgment for Dorothy. What constitutes undue influence depends on the circumstances of each case, and the fiduciary-relationship presumption must be applied with caution in the context of marital relationships. Although Mark’s power of attorney for property created a fiduciary relationship with Dorothy as a matter of law, the circuit court’s directed finding that Dorothy did not procure the preparation of the will was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court reiterated its repudiation of the debilitated-testator theory of presumptive undue influence. View "In re Estate of Coffman" on Justia Law

Fukama-Kabika was charged with criminal sexual assault, and criminal sexual abuse, unlawful restraint. The court advised him of the potential penalties if the jury were to find him guilty, including required terms of mandatory supervised release (MSR). Defense counsel confirmed the accuracy of the potential penalties. After conviction, the trial court did not mention the MSR terms during the sentencing hearing. That day, a written sentencing order was entered, stating an MSR term of “3 years” on counts I and IV and an MSR period of “1 year” on counts II and III. While an appeal was pending a record office supervisor requested an “amended order, issued nunc pro tunc to the original sentencing date” correcting the MSR. The prosecutor forwarded the letter to the trial court, noting that the court had the authority to amend the written sentencing order under Rule 472. That same day, apparently without providing notice to the parties, the court issued an amended order confirming that the MSR term on counts I and IV was “3 years to natural life.”After the rejection of his direct appeal, the appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Fukama-Kabika’s postconviction petition. The trial court was powerless to impose a term of MSR other than that provided by statute, three years to natural life and the misstatement of the MSR term on the written sentencing order was a clerical error. View "People v. Fukama-Kabika" on Justia Law

In 2016, Bush was involved in a neighborhood dispute involving two families that culminated in Bush firing the shots that killed Jones and injured Gulley. Bush was convicted of felony murder, second-degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, two counts of mob action, reckless discharge of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon.The appellate court reversed the aggravated battery with a firearm conviction, vacated the jury’s finding of guilty of reckless discharge of a firearm, and affirmed the convictions and sentences of felony murder and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Bush’s arguments that the prosecution did not prove that he engaged in the predicate felony of mob action; that mob action could not serve as the predicate felony for felony murder because there was no “independent felonious purpose”; and that the court erred in denying his motion in limine to admit a rap video to establish prior inconsistent statements by a witness and in allowing a juror to remain on the jury after the juror revealed an implied bias. The jury could rationally infer that Bush was actively engaged in carrying out a common plan to use force or violence to avenge an earlier beating. View "People v. Bush" on Justia Law

Montanez was convicted based on the 2002 murder of Villalobos and Ramirez. The court sentenced him to mandatory natural life for two first-degree murder convictions, a 20-year consecutive sentence for an aggravated vehicular hijacking conviction, and a 27-year consecutive sentence for an aggravated kidnapping conviction.Montanez challenged the denial of his request for leave to file a successive postconviction petition. He sought to raise a claim that the prosecution violated “Brady” by failing to disclose evidence relevant to his defense that was stored in a file in the basement of the Chicago Police Department and was discovered after his convictions. Montanez claims that although he became aware of the file during his first postconviction proceedings (which included 46 constitutional claims) he was unable to obtain the file during those proceedings to establish that it contained material that would have been helpful to his defense.The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the denial. In addition to failing to raise a Brady violation claim based on the entirety of the CPD file in his proposed successive petition, Montanez’s attempt to raise this claim on appeal was barred by res judicata. Montanez’s motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition falls short of demonstrating that the procedural hurdles for filing a successive petition should be lowered in this case. View "People v. Montanez" on Justia Law

The Municipal Code of Chicago included provisions concerning public parking, including parking meters. The fine for exceeding the time purchased at a parking meter differs depending on whether the violation occurs in the “central business district” or the “non-central business district.” At the time of the alleged violation, failure to comply with the parking meter regulations in the central business district resulted in a $65 fine. A $50 fine applied to similar violations outside the central business district.Pinkston filed a class-action, alleging that Chicago had engaged in the routine practice of improperly issuing central business district tickets for parking meter violations. The circuit court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings and voluntarily paying his fine. The appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal. The underlying issue—whether Pinkston received an improper parking ticket—is routinely handled at the administrative level; an aggrieved party cannot circumvent administrative remedies “by a class action for declaratory judgment, injunction or other relief.” View "Pinkston v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Brusaw was charged with aggravated DUI and aggravated driving while his license was revoked. The case was assigned to Judge Jones. A pretrial hearing was set for October 25, 2017. On October 5, Brusaw filed a pro se motion for substitution of Judge Jones under 725 ILCS 5/114-5(a), which gives a defendant the right to an “automatic” substitution of a judge upon the timely filing of a proper written motion containing a good-faith allegation that the judge is prejudiced. After two continuances and at least one pretrial appearance, neither Brusaw nor his attorney brought the motion to Judge Jones’s attention. The judge never entered a ruling on the motion. None of the three posttrial motions mentioned the motion for substitution of judge. Judge Jones sentenced Brusaw to a nine-year prison term. Brusaw spoke at sentencing but did not mention the substitution motion.The appellate court reversed his convictions, reasoning that the “plain language of section 114-5(a)” establishes that a motion for substitution brought under that provision “is not subject to the common abandonment principle.” The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the convictions but vacated the sentence on other grounds. The common law waiver rule applies. Brusaw and his attorney had multiple opportunities to bring the motion to the court’s attention yet never did so. View "People v. Brusaw" on Justia Law

Webster, 17 years old, fatally shot 15-year-old Gutierrez with a sawed-off shotgun while in the garage behind Webster’s home. Gutierrez sustained a wound to his hand, consistent with his arm having been in a defensive position, and two shotgun wounds to his face. Webster hid the shotgun, dragged Gutierrez’s body down the alley, and tried to clean the crime scene, depositing bloodstained items in neighboring garbage receptacles. In a video-recorded interview at the police station, Webster initially said that no one had been at his house that day and he had last seen Gutierrez about a month earlier. Eventually, Webster admitted that he shot Gutierrez, claiming that Gutierrez pulled out a shotgun, pointed it at Webster, and pulled one of the hammers and that Webster grabbed the shotgun from Gutierrez, “blacked out,” and shot Gutierrez twice to “finish him off.”Webster was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to a term of 40 years. The appellate court vacated the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the sentence. Absent a finding of error or abuse of discretion, the appellate court is without authority under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 615(b) to vacate a defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. The 40-year sentence is within statutory sentencing limits and is presumed proper. View "People v. Webster" on Justia Law