48 Ill. 2d 446 - The PEOPLE v. Abrams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 102 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “nature and elements of the offense charged,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 234 Ill. App. 3d 804 - People v. Balle · 83 Ill. 2d 319 - People v. Barker

2. ““The consequence of an illegal search, under the exclusionary rule, is that the evidence obtained of past or existing criminal activity, though it may be competent otherwise, is subject to suppression in the criminal proceeding. In addition, the offending officers may be subjected to civil and criminal liability. This exclusion of evidence extends to indirect as well as direct products of officers’ unlawful action so that ‘fruits’ of that action may be suppressed. Thus, testimony as to matters observed during an unlawful search which relate to past or existing criminal activity may be excluded as evidence. (Cf. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 , 83 S. Ct. 407 .) But there is no authority to extend the rule to allow suppression of evidence of crimes which arise from and are in reaction to an illegal search. (Cf. Vinyard v. United States (8th cir., 1964), 335 F.2d 176 ; United States v. Perdiz (S.D.N.Y., 1966), 256 F. Sup. 805; see also, Troop v. United States (7th cir., 1956), 235 F.2d 123 ; People v. Guillory (1960), 178 Cal. App. 2d 854 , 3 Cal. Rptr. 415 .) In our judgment it would be beyond the intendment of the rule to extend it. We consider that the prohibiting of the use of evidence obtained of past or existing criminal activity, as well as the exposing of the offending officers to criminal and civil liability, were the only sanctions which have been intended under the exclusionary rule to redress, in a sense, the constitutional violation and to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 152 Ill. 2d 368 - People v. Villarreal

3. ““The complaints here did not charge either that the physical contact was of an insulting or provoking nature or caused bodily harm, the alternative elements of the offense. Thus, the complaints for battery were also fatally defective and the judgments of conviction thereunder must be reversed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 13 Ill. App. 3d 371 - People v. Latham