People v. Holmes
90 N.E.3d 412
| Ill. | 2017Background
- On June 8, 2012, Chicago officer observed Holmes with a revolver in his waistband, arrested him, and later learned Holmes lacked a FOID card. The officer had no warrant and knew no additional facts before the arrest.
- Holmes was charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) counts alleging carrying a loaded, uncased, accessible firearm and corresponding counts alleging doing so without a FOID card.
- After the arrest, this court decided People v. Aguilar, holding parts of the AUUW statute facially unconstitutional. The State nol-prossed the counts based on the invalidated AUUW provisions.
- Holmes moved to quash his arrest and suppress evidence for the remaining FOID counts, arguing probable cause was retroactively invalidated by the void ab initio doctrine because the underlying AUUW statute was later held unconstitutional.
- Trial court granted suppression; the appellate court affirmed. The State appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.
- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, holding that the void ab initio doctrine does not retroactively invalidate probable cause when a statute is later declared unconstitutional on federal grounds (limited-lockstep applies), so suppression was not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Holmes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the void ab initio doctrine retroactively invalidates probable cause based on a statute later held unconstitutional | Probable cause at the time should remain valid; alternatively, if void ab initio applied, good-faith exception should save the evidence | Probable cause was retroactively invalidated because the statute was void ab initio (Carrera), so arrest and subsequent evidence must be suppressed | Void ab initio does not retroactively invalidate probable cause where the statute is invalidated on federal grounds; probable cause here stood, so suppression not required |
| Whether federal precedent controls analysis of probable cause under the state constitution (limited lockstep) | Federal Fourth Amendment precedent applies; officers may reasonably rely on a statute until declared unconstitutional | Void ab initio state doctrine precludes reliance and counsels suppression despite federal cases | Limited-lockstep applies to Fourth Amendment issues; federal cases (DeFillippo, Charles) persuasive that officers need not anticipate later invalidation, so probable cause survives |
| Whether the good-faith exception or exclusionary rule must be resolved if probable cause survives | If void ab initio did invalidate probable cause, good-faith exception might nonetheless allow evidence | Good-faith exception should not apply because void ab initio renders statute as never having existed (Carrera) | Court did not reach good-faith exception because it found probable cause valid and exclusionary rule inapplicable |
| Whether prior Illinois void-ab-initio precedents (Carrera, Krueger, Blair, McFadden) compel suppression | State urged consistency with limited-lockstep and later Illinois decisions that treat historical existence of statute as operative fact | Holmes relied on Carrera and the strict void ab initio line of cases to demand suppression | Court distinguished Carrera and found Blair/McFadden supported rejecting a literal retroactive invalidation of probable cause; held suppression not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1979) (officer may rely on a statute until it is declared unconstitutional; arrest in good faith does not automatically invalidate search incident to arrest)
- United States v. Charles, 801 F.3d 855 (7th Cir. 2015) (officer reasonably may rely on a handgun law later invalidated; probable cause survives for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- People v. Carrera, 203 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2002) (applied void ab initio to suppress evidence from extraterritorial arrests under a statute invalidated under state law)
- People v. Blair, 2013 IL 114122 (Ill. 2013) (void ab initio doctrine does not mean a statute literally never existed; historical existence can have operative consequences)
- People v. McFadden, 2016 IL 117424 (Ill. 2016) (a conviction under a statute later held facially unconstitutional remains effective until vacated; void ab initio does not automatically undo prior judgments)
- People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 (Ill. 2013) (Illinois AUUW provision held facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment)
- People v. Krueger, 175 Ill. 2d 60 (Ill. 1997) (rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court's Krull approach; discussing state exclusionary-rule remedies)