People v. Hagestedt

Held that the officer’s use of a flashlight to peer through an opening in the defendant’s chained and padlocked kitchen cabinet constituted an “unlawful search” in violation of Fourth Amendment and evidence found in connection with the search was subject to suppression. The majority applied a limited lockstep doctrine and applied the same conclusion with respect to the state constitutional claim. Justice Neville’s concurrence pushed back against the application of the lockstepping method, calling on the Court to “recognize its responsibility as the final interpreter of the Illinois Constitution.” Justice Neville would “follow[] the United States Supreme Court only when its reasoning persuades us that it has struck a fair balance between the rights of Illinois citizens and the interests of the government, in accord with the words of the Illinois Constitution.”