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

  1. Home
  2.  » 
  3. Firm News
  4.  » NUMBER 9 OF BILL WOLF’S “TOP TEN” FOURTH AMENDMENT CASES FOR ILLINOIS LAWYERS: THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT CASE OF PEOPLE V. MCGREGORY

NUMBER 9 OF BILL WOLF’S “TOP TEN” FOURTH AMENDMENT CASES FOR ILLINOIS LAWYERS: THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT CASE OF PEOPLE V. MCGREGORY

On Behalf of | Dec 31, 2019 | Firm News

In the course of looking for narcotics and other items pursuant to a search warrant, officers found a credit card embosser, computers, and other items associated with financial identity theft. The officers seized these items and then stored them in inventory for later review.Eight months later, an officer received a search warrant for the underlying data in these electronic devices that were seized. The trial court granted the motion to suppress the data, finding that the eight month delay in seeking the data to be unreasonable.The appellate court affirmed this decision, agreeing that the delay was unreasonable, and refusing to employ the good faith exception. The appellate court rejected the “overworked officer” defense and upheld suppression of the data.

The case is People v. Homer McGregory, 2019 IL App. (1st) 173101. Decided 6/25/2019

https://courts.illinois.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2019/1stDistrict/1173101.pdf

In the course of looking for narcotics and other items pursuant to a search warrant, officers found a credit card embosser, computers, and other items associated with financial identity theft. The officers seized these items and then stored them in inventory for later review.

Eight months later, an officer received a search warrant for the underlying data in these electronic devices that were seized. The trial court granted the motion to suppress the data, finding that the eight month delay in seeking the data to be unreasonable.

The appellate court affirmed this decision, agreeing that the delay was unreasonable, and refusing to employ the good faith exception. The appellate court rejected the “overworked officer” defense and upheld suppression of the data.