2023 IL App (1st) 220809
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- July 31, 2006: Lofton and Marthol were robbed at gunpoint; Lofton was shot and Marthol was struck with a gun. Marthol later identified Wimberly from a photo that was added to a second array.
- Police issued an investigative alert after the photo identification; Wimberly was detained on an unrelated misdemeanor in Dolton and then arrested by Chicago police pursuant to the investigative alert on September 28, 2006. Marthol identified him in a lineup the same day.
- Wimberly was convicted by a jury (attempted murder and armed robbery) and received consecutive terms totaling 80 years; convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Wimberly filed an initial postconviction petition in 2011 (dismissed); later motions for leave to file a successive postconviction petition were denied (most recently the circuit court denied leave to supplement a successive petition asserting his arrest under an investigative alert was unconstitutional).
- On appeal he argued (1) that new appellate decisions (Bass, Smith) constitute "cause" to file a successive petition and (2) that the arrest was unconstitutional under article I, §6 of the Illinois Constitution, causing prejudice because evidence obtained from the arrest led to his convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wimberly) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new case law (Bass/Smith) establishes cause to file a successive postconviction petition | Wimberly could have raised the claim earlier; concerns about investigative alerts existed in prior opinions, so Bass/Smith do not create an objective impediment | Bass/Smith were decided after his initial petition; their novel holdings created objective cause to permit a successive petition | Court: Wimberly satisfied cause — Bass/Smith (and Smith’s echoing of Bass) postdated his initial petition and were novel, so cause is established |
| Whether Wimberly demonstrated prejudice (i.e., a colorable claim that his arrest pursuant to an investigative alert violated the Illinois Constitution and infected his trial) | Arrests pursuant to investigative alerts can be unconstitutional (per Bass/Smith); suppression of evidence would show prejudice | Arrests made without a warrant are lawful if supported by probable cause; Wimberly did not allege lack of probable cause, so he cannot show prejudice | Court: No prejudice shown — under Illinois lockstep with the U.S. Fourth Amendment (and authority recognizing warrantless arrests with probable cause), an investigative-alert arrest supported by probable cause does not violate article I §6; leave to file denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) (warrantless arrests are permissible under the Fourth Amendment if supported by probable cause)
- People v. Caballes, 221 Ill. 2d 282 (2006) (Illinois phrase "supported by affidavit" is virtually synonymous with "by oath or affirmation," supporting lockstep interpretation)
- People v. Buss, 187 Ill. 2d 144 (1999) (collective knowledge doctrine: probable cause may be established from the shared knowledge of officers working together)
- People v. Holmes, 2017 IL 120407 (2017) (Illinois Supreme Court: generally construe article I, §6 in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment interpretation)
Decision: Affirmed — denial of leave to file successive postconviction petition affirmed.