Illinois Supreme Court considers expectation of privacy in hospitals
Send a link to a friend
[May 16, 2024]
By DILPREET RAJU
& ANDREW ADAMS
Capitol News Illinois
news@capitolnewsillinois.com
SPRINGFIELD – While Cortez Turner was in a hospital room being treated
for a gunshot wound to his leg in 2016, police took his clothes. Now,
the Illinois Supreme Court is weighing whether that action violated
Turner’s expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
The arguments in the case were among several heard by the high court
Tuesday, including a case that could change how police handle certain
firearms possession violations.
Turner was ultimately convicted of perjury and murder in 2019, at least
partially as a result of the evidence police gathered from his room at a
Murphysboro hospital, according to court filings in the People v. Turner
case.
Police had arrived at the hospital in response to a separate gunshot
victim and, in the process, seized evidence from Turner’s hospital room,
according to court filings. Turner, on the night of the incident in
2016, told hospital staff he was waiting for a ride when he heard
gunfire and was hit by an errant bullet, court records show. The filings
also stated Turner did not object when police told him they were going
to seize his belongings.
A forensic examiner later determined by examining Turner’s clothes that
the damage to them was caused by gunfire within a range of three inches.
Police used that and other evidence to piece together a case against
Turner as being part of a drive-by shooting that resulted in the death
of a 38-year-old Murphysboro man.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2024/May/16/images/ads/current/humanesociety_sda022411.png)
Upon his 2019 conviction, Turner was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
But he now argues police violated his Fourth Amendment right protecting
him from unreasonable governmental search and seizure, and that he had a
reasonable expectation of privacy in a hospital trauma room, and police
lacked a warrant.
Assistant Attorney General Michael Cebula argued that police did not
need a warrant, and that the evidence is admissible to courts, due to
what’s known as the “good-faith” exception – a legal principle through
which evidence is viewed as permissible in circumstances where the
officers were acting out of good faith when conducting a search.
“Police were told that he was a gunshot victim,” Cebula told the Supreme
Court. “They walk by the room, the door is open, so a police officer
acting in good faith believe they have the right to enter this room,
certainly when they see bloody clothes in plain view.”
Richard Whitney, a lawyer for Turner, told the court there needs to be
consideration of how someone in a hospital trauma room not only deserves
to be free from search and seizure but may be far from normal critical
faculties, which presumes privacy.
“Being in a state of undress and vulnerability, experiencing physical
pain, receiving medical treatment that exposes large parts of the body,
being hooked up to monitors and an IV, these are all intimate activities
that you don't want the general public to be gazing in on,” Whitney
said.
A motion to suppress the evidence obtained from Turner’s hospital room
was denied by a circuit court. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday
questioned whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a
hospital setting, regardless of room or location within the hospital.
Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office argued even if the Supreme Court
finds the evidence should have been suppressed, it would be moot in the
face of other evidence.
“Any error in admitting defendant’s bloody clothes at his bench trial
was harmless because the remaining evidence against him is
overwhelming,” the attorney general’s office wrote in a brief.
[to top of second column]
|
![](../images/051624PIX/news_b3.jpg)
The Illinois Supreme Court Building is pictured in Springfield.
(Capitol News Illinois photo by Andrew Adams)
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2024/May/16/images/ads/current/peasley_lda_051513.png)
Concealed carry
In 2021, Anthony Harvey was arrested and later charged with unlawful use
of a weapon after police found a semiautomatic pistol during a traffic
stop. During that stop, officers asked Harvey if he had a Firearms
Owners Identification card or concealed carry license and he said he
didn’t.
Now, Harvey is requesting that the Supreme Court reverse his conviction.
Harvey’s lawyer argued that the state didn’t provide “affirmative
evidence” that he was illegally in possession of the gun. In saying he
didn’t have a concealed carry license, Harvey could have meant that he
didn’t have documentation on his person, which could have resulted in a
different charge.
“That is the burden of proof that's placed on the state and if the state
wanted to extinguish any ambiguity or lack of clarity on that, then the
officer could have asked a follow up question,” Philip Payne, Harvey’s
state-appointed lawyer, said in court Tuesday. “The state is never
required to rely on the defendant to tell him himself.”
Instead of using potentially insufficient evidence, according to Payne,
the state should have checked whether Harvey had a concealed carry
license using the database of CCL holders maintained by the Illinois
State Police.
But some of the high court’s justices seemed to be wary of this argument
during questions to Erin O’Connell, the lawyer representing the state.
“The statute seems to put the burden on the licensee to respond to the
question from the police officer, correct?” Chief Justice Mary Jane
Theis asked.
“Correct,” O’Connell replied.
O’Connell went on to argue that the state had still met the burden of
proof to demonstrate that Harvey illegally possessed the weapon, relying
on testimony from officers that Harvey exhibited “furtive movements” to
conceal the weapon.
“The court doesn't have to suspend common sense when it's looking at
evidence…” O’Connell said Tuesday. “He's being asked by the officers,
‘are you licensed?’ And he says ‘no.’ That tends to corroborate that he
had never been issued a concealed carry license.”
The case follows a recent trend of reexamining firearms regulations
following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle
& Pistol Association v. Bruen, a case dealing with New York’s concealed
carry permitting law. Subsequent cases at the federal level and in state
courts have further strengthened Second Amendment protections for
firearms owners and put additional requirements on prosecutors in
proving crimes related to weapon possession.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2024/May/16/images/ads/current/moriearty_sda_PROMGRAD_2024.png)
Harvey’s lawyers relied on this in written briefs, arguing that in the
post-Bruen legal framework, Harvey had a “presumptive right” to possess
a firearm.
The justices are set to deliberate on the two cases before issuing
rulings in the coming months, although no timeline is set for when the
justices might deliver their opinion.
Capitol News Illinois is
a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government. It is
distributed to hundreds of print and broadcast outlets statewide. It is
funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R.
McCormick Foundation, along with major contributions from the Illinois
Broadcasters Foundation and Southern Illinois Editorial Association. |