Judicial Rulings

U.S. Supreme Court

The good and bad news for Illinois

TWO RECENT U.S. Supreme Court decisions will have direct affect on law enforcement in Illinois — one favorable, one not so favorable.

On the favorable side, in February the nation's high court ruled that a driver's refusal to take a blood-alcohol, or "Breathalyzer," test can be used against him in court. In a 7-2 decision, the court said it is not a violation of a person's constitutional right against self-incrimination to have such a refusal used as evidence in court. Illinois' drunk driving law currently includes a provision allowing prosecutors to use a motorist's refusal to take a breath test as evidence in court.

The U.S. court case involved an appeal of a ruling by the South Dakota Supreme Court, which said jurors cannot be told about a driver's refusal to take a breath test. At least six other states have made similar rulings. Illinois courts have not ruled on the refusal provision since the General Assembly last amended the law in 1981.

On the unfavorable side, a March decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on an Illinois case will make it harder for the state Attorney General's Office to recover state money believed lost through a bid-rigging conspiracy by two construction industries. The nation's high court ruled unanimously that Illinois officials may not have blanket access to federal grand jury materials gathered during an 18-month criminal investigation of persons involved in state construction projects using sheet metal and piping.

In the case, State of Illinois v. Abbott Associates, Inc., et al., the high court cited the "General Rule of Secrecy" for grand jury proceedings, saying any change would require congressional action. Illinois officials will have to show a "particularized need" for some of the grand jury materials in order to gain access to them. The case involves civil antitrust actions against the defendants.      —Nora Newman Jurgens

Illinois Supreme Court

Dunne keeps veto power

THE ILLINOIS Supreme Court has helped Cook County Board President George Dunne temporarily stave off an attempt by a coalition of county board members to strip him of his veto power.

The high court March 21 refused to hear the county board's appeal of a Cook County Circuit Court ruling, which blocked an ordinance changing the number of votes required to override a veto. Dunne and two other commissioners had filed suit against the ordinance, passed in January, which lowered the number of votes from 14 to 11.

Cook County Circuit Judge James Murray said March 7 that the county board's home-rule power does not allow the board to change the veto majority from four-fifths to three-fifths without a referendum.

The case will go back to the appellate court for further action, according to an attorney representing the board and the county.                             — Nora Newman Jurgens

Picket lines and eligibility for unemployment benefits

MEMBERS of nonstriking unions cannot lose their eligibility for unemployment compensation by refusing to cross a striking union's picket line, according to a March 25 Supreme Court decision.

In the case, Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. William M. Bowling, Director of Labor, the high court ruled that the director of labor acted according to the law when he found claimants from unions other than the striking union not to be ineligible for unemployment compensation when they failed to cross picket lines in a strike by the American Flint Glass Blowers Union (AFGBU). In its decision, the high court cited Section 604 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 48, sec. 434): ". . .an individual's failure to cross a picket line. . .shall not, in itself, be deemed to be participation by him in the labor dispute."

Owens-Illinois contended that by refusing to work during the AFGBU strike, the claimants were in violation of the "no strike" clauses in their collective bargaining agreements and, therefore, were involved in their own labor dispute and work stoppage. The claimants would then be ineligible for benefits under Section 604.

In interpreting the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Supreme Court distinguished between a labor dispute resulting in a strike or work stoppage and a stoppage of work leading to a labor dispute. Writing for the court, Justice Goldenhersh stated, "It is clear that it was not the labor dispute between claimants and plaintiff that cause the work stoppage. On the contrary, the record shows clearly that the stoppage of work caused the dispute over the contract." While concurring with the appellate court's ruling that the "claimants were properly determined to be 'not ineligible' for benefits under section 604," the court modified the judgment of the appellate court on the regulations of the Department of Labor for holding hearings on unemployment benefits. The department must review its rules to be certain they comply with the requirements of the act.

Law enforcement experience and searching vehicles

A POLICE officer's factual knowledge, based on law-enforcement experience, is relevant in determining whether an officer has probable cause for a warrantless search of vehicle.

In People v. Richard E. Smith, a sequence of events led to the officer's search of the Smith vehicle: smelling alcohol on Smith's breath, observing an open beer bottle inside the vehicle and observing on the floor a box, which he recognized through previous experience as a law officer as a type used to carry marijuana. At this point, the officer entered the vehicle and observed a hypodermic syringe lying on the floor. He also opened the box which contained a metal pipe, cannabis and a white powder later determined to be cocaine.

The Illinois Supreme Court in March reversed the appellate court decision and confirmed the decision of the circuit court finding Smith guilty of unlawful possession of a controlled substance.

In response to the defendant's claim that an officer's warrantless search of his vehicle violated the warrant requirements of the Illinois and U.S. Constitutions, the Supreme Court cited United States v. Ross (1982) which states "if probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search." The Ross ruling applies to cases like Smith, which occurred prior to that decision.

The Illinois Supreme Court, in reviewing the sequence of events preceding the Smith search, said the officer had probable cause to enter the vehicle after observing the open beer bottle. According to the opinion, written by Justice Seymour Simon, "By the time the officer seized the box he also had probable cause to search the entire vehicle for drugs."

June 1983 | Illinois Issues | 24