People v. Cregan, 2014 IL 113600

Carlos Cregan was convicted of unlawful possession of less than 15 grams of cocaine; he challenged a search of his luggage as a Fourth Amendment violation.
Arrest occurred at a train station on a McLean County civil arrest warrant for unpaid child support; officers knew he was a gang member.
Defendant exited the train with two bags: a wheeled luggage bag and a laundry bag; he was handcuffed after arrest.
Officers searched the bags incident to arrest and found hair gel containing cocaine; the bag search occurred before any attempt to turn bags over to a companion.
The trial court found the bags were within defendant’s immediate control and that an inventory/search was appropriate; defense argued the search exceeded the scope of an incident-to-arrest search.
The appellate court affirmed, concluding the search was valid under the search-incident-to-arrest exception; the issue was raised as a constitutional matter and not forfeited.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the luggage search was valid as incident to arrest	Cregan: search within arrestee’s control justified by safety/possession	Cregan: luggage not within immediate possession; search broadened beyond scope	Search was valid as incident to arrest
Whether forfeiture/notice requirements were met for challenging the search	State: issue forfeited; Enoch exceptions apply	Cregan: constitutional issue preserved under Enoch	Constitutional-issue forfeiture exception applied; not forfeited
Whether Hoskins controls the scope of search for movable property (luggage) incident to arrest	Hoskins allows search of items immediately associated with arrestee	Gant limits search to area within arrestee’s reach; luggage not within immediate control	Hoskins governs; luggage within arrestee’s immediate control and searchable
Whether Gant/Robinson preclude searching arrestee’s luggage when arrestee is handcuffed	Robinson permits full search of arrestee’s person; Gant narrows area search	Gant limits area search; luggage may not be within reach	Gant does not negate Robinson; luggage search upheld under Hoskins framework
Whether the hair gel container inside the luggage could be searched under the same rule	Robinson/Hoskins اجازه broad search of items immediately associated with arrestee	Hair gel contained within luggage; not within arrestee’s immediate possession	Hair gel container search upheld as within the scope of the incident-to-arrest search

People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (Ill. 1988) (non-forfeited constitutional issues raised at trial may be raised on appeal)
People v. Hoskins, 101 Ill. 2d 209 (Ill. 1984) (purse may be immediately associated with arrestee and searched incident to arrest)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits vehicle searches incident to arrest to arrestee within reach or with probable vehicle evidence)
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (full search of arrestee’s person incident to custody; no need for weapon/evidence probability)
United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1977) (footlocker not immediately associated with arrestee; luggage searches require proximity to arrestee)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (scope of search incident to arrest limited to arrestee and area within immediate control)
State v. Garcia, 605 F.2d 349 (7th Cir. 1979) (Fourth Amendment search of hand-carried luggage within arrestee’s reach)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (U.S. 2011) (good-faith reliance on pre-Gant precedent can affect exclusionary rule application)