People v. Minkens
188 N.E.3d 1167
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Deandre Minkens was tried (after severance from codefendant Shante Thomas) for first-degree murder and intentional homicide of an unborn child for the killing of Rosemary Newman; jury convicted and he received natural life without parole.
- Police executed valid search warrants at Minkens’s residence and garage and recovered two cell phones; the State obtained data from those phones and also acquired cell site location information (CSLI) from providers without a warrant prior to Carpenter.
- Trial evidence included forensic evidence (victim’s injuries and fingernail clippings found in Minkens’s car), jailhouse informant testimony implicating Minkens and Thomas, eyewitness/surveillance evidence, and CSLI analysis mapping phone locations the night of the murder.
- Minkens’s counsel did not move to suppress the CSLI; Minkens later claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to challenge warrantless CSLI collection after Carpenter v. United States held CSLI collection is a Fourth Amendment search.
- The Illinois appellate court applied Strickland v. Washington: counsel’s failure was not objectively unreasonable because Carpenter postdated the suppression hearing and trial, and Minkens failed to show prejudice—suppression of his CSLI would not likely have changed the outcome given other strong evidence (including co-defendant and victim phone data).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress CSLI obtained without a warrant | People: Not ineffective because, at the time, law did not require a warrant for CSLI; Carpenter was decided later | Minkens: Counsel should have moved to suppress CSLI; Carpenter shows CSLI is protected and warrantless collection violates Fourth Amendment | Counsel not ineffective; failure to anticipate Carpenter was reasonable under then-existing law |
| Whether Minkens was prejudiced by counsel's failure (Strickland prejudice prong) | People: Even if suppression were warranted, outcome unchanged—other evidence and co-defendant/victim CSLI would establish location and guilt | Minkens: Excluding CSLI would undermine State’s timeline and weaken case against him | No prejudice shown; overwhelming evidence and alternative phone-location data made a different result unlikely |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. _ (2018) (held law enforcement’s acquisition of CSLI is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (warrantless searches of digital cell-phone data incident to arrest are presumptively unreasonable)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (placing a GPS tracker on a vehicle and monitoring it is a search under the Fourth Amendment)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: objective unreasonableness and prejudice)