Wolf Criminal Law
  • Home
  • About
    • Bill Wolf
    • Jack DeBacker
  • Practice Areas
    • Criminal Defense
    • Appeals
    • Assault Charges
    • Asset Forfeiture
    • Carjackings
    • Drug Crimes
    • Federal Crimes
    • Grand Jury Investigations
    • Gun Crimes
    • Homicide
    • RICO Charges
    • Sex Crimes
    • Theft, Robbery And Burglary
    • Vehicular Homicide
    • White Collar Crimes
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Areas We Serve
    • Champaign County
    • Peoria County
    • Winnebago County

Call or text us for a free consultation: 312-444-0907

Wolf Criminal Law
  • Home
  • About
    • Bill Wolf
    • Jack DeBacker
  • Practice Areas
    • Criminal Defense
    • Appeals
    • Assault Charges
    • Asset Forfeiture
    • Carjackings
    • Drug Crimes
    • Federal Crimes
    • Grand Jury Investigations
    • Gun Crimes
    • Homicide
    • RICO Charges
    • Sex Crimes
    • Theft, Robbery And Burglary
    • Vehicular Homicide
    • White Collar Crimes
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Areas We Serve
    • Champaign County
    • Peoria County
    • Winnebago County
Email

CALL

Attorney Bill Wolf

We Represent Clients In Chicago And Statewide, Including Cook, Will, Kane And DuPage Counties

  1. Home
  2.  – 
  3. Firm News
  4.  – 
  5. NUMBER 2 OF BILL WOLF’S “TOP TEN” FOURTH AMENDMENT CASES FOR ILLINOIS LAWYERS: THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT CASE OF PEOPLE V. EUBANKS

NUMBER 2 OF BILL WOLF’S “TOP TEN” FOURTH AMENDMENT CASES FOR ILLINOIS LAWYERS: THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT CASE OF PEOPLE V. EUBANKS

On Behalf of Wolf Criminal Law | Dec 26, 2019 | Firm News

People v. Eubanks, 2019 IL 123525 (2019) was decided on 12/5/2019. Here is a link:

https://courts.illinois.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2019/123525.pdf

In a case where a driver is charged with First Degree murder and Aggravated DUI where the Defendant’s urine was taken to establish its alcohol content, the Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of 625 ILCS 5/11- 501.2(c)(2) (West 2008) (the Illinois Appellate Court declared the statute to be facially unconstitutional on direct appeal).

The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s determination that section 11-501.2(c)(2) was facially unconstitutional, but held that the statute was held unconstitutional as applied to this Defendant.

Applying an exigent circumstances analysis, the Illinois Supreme Court found that while the statutory requirements were met in this case, it did not necessarily follow that there were exigent circumstances. Looking at the specific circumstances of this case, the Illinois Supreme Court found no exigent circumstances for a warrantless seizure of the Defendant’s urine.

This case’s discussion of Mitchell v. Wisconsin in reaching this decision makes this decision required close reading to make an argument that there’s no exigent circumstances in your client’s case.

Recent Posts

  • How a “gang member” label can block diversion in Cook County
  • 4 mistakes to avoid when pursuing a criminal appeal
  • How defense attorneys work to suppress confessions before a trial
  • Why a broken chain of custody can get a case dismissed
  • 2 common consequences tied to RICO charges in Illinois

Archives

  • August 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • August 2023
  • April 2022
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • December 2019
  • August 2019

Categories

  • Asset Forfeiture
  • Criminal Defense
  • Firm News

RSS Feed

Subscribe To This Blog’s Feed

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Wolf Criminal Law


Address

35 E. Wacker Drive
Suite 1980
Chicago, IL 60601

Chicago Law Office



Contact

Phone: 312-444-0907

Review The Firm
  • Follow
  • Follow

© 2026 Wolf Criminal Law • All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw

  • Follow
  • Follow