People v. Clark

Held that arrests pursuant to investigative alerts do not automatically violate Illinois Constitution’s search and seizure clause, overruling People v. Smith, 463 Ill. Dec. 435, 209 N.E.3d 1089, and abrogating People v. Bass, 437 Ill. Dec. 430, 144 N.E.3d 542. Those cases failed to identify any valid basis for departing from lockstep construction. The court already held that the difference between “affidavit” in Illinois’ search and seizure clause and “Oath or affirmation” in the fourth amendment was not a reason to depart from lockstep. Moreover, Bass and Smith did not identify any “state tradition and values as reflected by long-standing state case precedent” that would justify a departure. The court also held that the defendant’s arrest pursuant to an investigative alert did not violate either the Fourth Amendment or Illinois’ search and seizure clause. The dissent would have held that the only time it is reasonable for police to make warrantless arrests under Illinois’ search and seizure provision are when there are exigent circumstances, which were not present in the case at bar. The dissent argued that the lower court’s decisions established that investigative alerts were a systemic, racial policy or practice of Chicago police and that warrantless arrests are usedto predominently effectuate arrests of Black and Latinx suspects and that the majority’s decision would effectively legalize warrantless arrests of racial minorities.