People v. Strickland, 2019 IL App (1st) 161098

Defendant William “Dashawn” Strickland was tried and convicted for the March 2, 2013 murder of his grandfather; sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment.
Key evidence: testimony from girlfriend Lavetta Smith and friend Phillamena Stitts that defendant left a parked car, entered the victim’s yard with a gun, returned with a bag, and later asked others to hide the gun; ballistics linked a recovered .25 Beretta to the bullets that killed the victim.
Grand jury testimony implicated Danny “Black” Armstrong as someone defendant solicited to kill the victim for payment; Armstrong later denied participation at trial but had identified receiving the victim’s gun.
Defendant frequently used his grandmother Janet’s cell phone; the State obtained historical cell-site location information (CSLI) for Janet’s phone via a March 2013 grand jury subpoena and presented location analysis at trial.
Before trial defendant moved to suppress the CSLI as a warrantless search; the trial court denied suppression. Defendant also requested IPI Criminal No. 3.17 (accomplice-witness caution) for Smith and Armstrong; the court denied that instruction.
On appeal defendant argued (1) the court erred by refusing IPI 3.17 and (2) the CSLI admission violated the Fourth Amendment under Carpenter; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	People’s Argument	Strickland’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in refusing IPI Criminal No. 3.17 (accomplice-witness instruction)	No; the evidence did not create probable cause to indict Smith or Armstrong as accomplices, so the instruction was not warranted.	Yes; testimony (Smith’s conduct, Armstrong’s prior agreement and possession of the gun) gave probable cause that they were accomplices and jury should have been cautioned.	Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion. Evidence insufficient to show legal accountability; any omission harmless given IPI 1.02 on witness credibility.
Whether admission of CSLI (obtained via pre-Carpenter grand jury subpoena) violated the Fourth Amendment and required suppression	CSLI acquisition pre-Carpenter was consistent with prevailing appellate authority; or, in any event, any error was harmless.	Warrantless acquisition of CSLI violated Carpenter and required suppression of the location analysis.	Court accepted that Carpenter renders the warrantless acquisition a Fourth Amendment violation but declined to resolve good-faith exception; found any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because other evidence overwhelmingly supported conviction.

Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (CSLI implicates reasonable expectation of privacy; warrant generally required)
People v. Cobb, 97 Ill. 2d 465 (1983) (accomplice-witness instruction required where witness’s conduct supports probable-cause indictment)
People v. Harris, 182 Ill. 2d 114 (1998) (trial court must assess probable cause that witness was an accomplice before giving IPI 3.17)
People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52 (1990) (standards for accomplice-instruction application)
People v. Winston, 160 Ill. App. 3d 623 (1987) (accomplice instruction required where witness present during planning and shared proceeds)
People v. LeFlore, 2015 IL 116799 (Ill. 2015) (Illinois recognized good-faith exception where police reasonably relied on binding appellate precedent)
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (beeper tracking of a vehicle not a Fourth Amendment search)
United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (limits on electronic tracking and beeper use)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (good-faith/exclusionary-rule analysis focuses on objective reasonableness of officer’s conduct)