People v. Bernard
2015 IL App (2d) 140451
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Aurora officers responded to a domestic disturbance and a suicidal individual; Sansalone stated he would ingest pills and defendant was observed with a prescription bottle in the bathroom.
- Officer Johnson saw a pill bottle with defendant’s name, opened it, and believed pills were ecstasy based on experience and information from Sansalone’s sister.
- Defendant was arrested for possession; she resisted handcuffing; placed in squad car with bottle in cup holder beside the driver.
- Defendant swallowed all pills after removing handcuffs while in the back of the squad car.
- Defendant was indicted for obstruction of justice based on swallowing the pills; defense sought suppression arguing Fourth Amendment violation in obtaining the bottle.
- Trial court granted suppression; appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the evidence of swallowing was not fruit of the alleged misconduct and exclusionary rule did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether swallowing the pills was fruit of a Fourth Amendment violation | Bernard | Bernard | Exclusionary rule does not apply to swallowing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sutherland, 223 Ill. 2d 187 (2006) (exclusionary rule framework and fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree)
- Henderson v. People, 2013 IL 114040 (2013) (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree attenuation standard)
- People v. Villarreal, 152 Ill. 2d 368 (1992) (distinct-crime exception to exclusionary rule)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (test for fruit of the illegality; attenuation)
- United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 (1980) (attenuation analysis in exclusionary context)
- Calandra v. United States, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) (deterrence rationale for exclusionary rule)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (deterrence and scope of exclusionary rule)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule foundation and deterrence)