Archives

Updated: 06-25-10

Home

Current Case Review

Firearm Laws

  Victor D. Quilici
  (847) 298-2566
  victorq@ameritech.net

  Website Powered by
  Quality Solutions, Inc.
  www.QSLinc.com

Firearm Laws
	United States v. Mixon, C.A. 7 (Wis.) , 457 F. 3d 615 (6/12//06) People v. Price. Ill. App. 1st District. ____N.E. 2d ____, 2007 WL 2163997 UPDATE: U.S. Supreme Court Accepts D.C. Gun Ban Appeal SMALL v. UNITED STATES People v. Collins, 824 N.E. 2d 268 The City of Chicago et al., vs. Beretta U.S.A Corporation, et al. DOJ Opinion: The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally. People vs. Smythe, 352 I11. App. 3d 1056. People v. Cameron, 336 Ill. App. 3d 548. People v. Watkins, 361 Ill. App. 3d 498 (3rd Dist 2005)
Search & Seizure
	Hiland v. Trent, 868 N.E. 2d 396, Third District Appellate Court (5/16/07). People v. Williams, 858 N.E. 2nd 606. Illinois Appellate Court, Ist District. United States v. Cherry, 436 F. 3d 769 ( C.A. 7, Ill., 2006) People v. Miller, 824 N.E. 2d 1080 , Illinois 1st District Appellate Court (2-7-05). HUDSON v. MICHIGAN. United States Supreme Court, June 2006. 126 S. Ct. 2159 People v. Dieppa, 357 Ill. App. 3d 847 ILLINOIS v. CABALLES. U.S. Supreme Court (1/25/05) on writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois. 03-923 DEVENPECK et al. v. ALFORD No. 03-710 People v. Parra, 352 Ill. App. 3d 584, 817 N.E. 2d 141 ( 2d Dist., 10/12/04) People v. Travis Smith, 346 Ill. App. 3d 146, 803 N.E. 2d 1074 People v. Starbuck, 358 Ill App. 3d 234 (3rd Dist. 2005) People v. Mendoza, 846 N.E. 2d 169 (2d Dist App. Ct., March 2006) People v. Frederick Hampton, 358 Ill App. 3d 1029 (2d Dist 2005) and People v. Shinara Mathews, 357 Ill App. 3d 1062 (3rd Dist. 2005)

People v. Dieppa, 357 Ill. App. 3d 847

I previously reported People v. Cameron, 336 Ill. App. 3d 548 (see Archives), wherein the Appellate Court for the 4^th District held that the glove compartment of a motor vehicle did not fit within the exemption language of the criminal statute regarding transportation of a firearm, because it is not a “container” within the meaning of the statute. In that case the Justice writing the opinion of the majority stated that the legislature, when debating the bill before its passage, meant “container” to mean “some sort of container that can be picked up and carried around.” The Justice noted:”If the firearm is in a glove box in a vehicle, I haven’t seen too many vehicles that someone can pick up and carry around.”

The diverging views of different appellate district courts can be seen in a recent Second District decision where the Appellate Court in People v. Dieppa, 357 Ill. App. 3d 847, reversed a state court’s granting of a motion to suppress evidence of a firearm found during a search of the defendant’s glove compartment, and made a finding completely opposite that of the Fourth District Appellate Court in the Cameron case regarding the glove compartment as a “container.” The 2d District Appellate Court stated in no uncertain terms that a “glove compartment, whether locked or unlocked, was a container . . .” citing a U.S. Supreme Court case: New York v. Belton 453 U.S. at 460, 101 S. Ct. at 2864 (‘Container’ is ‘any object capable of holding another object’ and ‘thus includes closed or open glove compartments . . .bags . . . and the like’). See, also, U.S. v. Woody 55 F, 3rd 1257, 1269,1270 (7^th Cir. 1995).

The opposite finding regarding the glove compartment as a “container” was not helpful to the defendant in this case, since he was a convicted felon and the pistol found in the glove compartment was loaded. Additionally, the Appeals Court here held that a police officer having the legal right, based on the circumstances, to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle also had the right to search the glove compartment. The defendant was arrested and secured in the officer’s squad car when he conducted his search of the vehicle and found a semiautomatic pistol in a zipped bank bag in the car’s glove compartment. [Two containers?]

Regarding the issue of the propriety of the officer’s search of the defendant’s vehicle after he was arrested and secured in the squad car, the Court found a clear split between an Illinois Supreme Court case (People v. Stehman, 203 Ill. 2d 26) and a later decided U.S. Supreme Court case (Thorton v. U.S., 541 U.S. 615), and held that Stehman was no longer good law, while Thorton allowed the search. However, the Court amplified that observation by noting that the Illinois State Supreme Court has “the authority to interpret provisions of our state constitution more broadly than the U.S. Supreme Court interprets similar provisions of the federal constitution.”

Appeal to the Illinois State Supreme Court was denied (12-1-05).

The information provided herein is not intended as legal advice, and should not be interpreted as such. The author of this site has and will make efforts to assure that the information he presents in the portions of the content he authors on this site is accurate. The viewer, however, is cautioned that because of the complexity of the material and ever-changing laws, regulations and court decisions, the author may have little or no control over the accuracy of the material and, irrespective of any control, Quilici makes no representation or guarantee as to the accuracy, quality, content, or legality of said information. The viewer, therefore, acknowledges that any use of this Website and reliance upon any materials shall be at your sole risk and that Quilici shall not be liable for any loss of data, lost profits or any other damages or losses resulting from such use. Users, therefore, are urged to independently verify the information on this site.

Quilici reserves the right to revise any or all of the materials on this Website and/or to modify any features, materials or specifics without notice. All matters relating to this Website shall be governed by the laws of the State of Illinois.