{ "id": 3462120, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MATTHEW JAMES, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. James", "decision_date": "1986-10-17", "docket_number": "No. 83-1323", "first_page": "214", "last_page": "235", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "149 Ill. App. 3d 214" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "442 U.S. 200", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1531819 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/442/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 S. Ct. 2254", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "406 U.S. 356", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6170949 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/406/0356-01" ] }, { "cite": "463 N.E.2d 832", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 Ill. App. 3d 857", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5677346 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "863" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/123/0857-01" ] }, { "cite": "457 U.S. 687", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6193489 ], "weight": 17, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "691" }, { "page": "320" }, { "page": "2667" }, { "page": "691" }, { "page": "320" }, { "page": "2667" }, { "page": "2667" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/457/0687-01" ] }, { "cite": "422 U.S. 540", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "604-05" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill. 2d 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5405265 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/56/0312-01" ] }, { "cite": "422 U.S. 590", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9639 ], "weight": 30, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "597" }, { "page": "423" }, { "page": "2258" }, { "page": "602" }, { "page": "426" }, { "page": "2261" }, { "page": "603-04" }, { "page": "427" }, { "page": "2261-62" }, { "page": "427-28" }, { "page": "2262" }, { "page": "594" }, { "page": "421-22" }, { "page": "2257" }, { "page": "604" }, { "page": "428" }, { "page": "2262" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/422/0590-01" ] }, { "cite": "489 N.E.2d 334", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "140 Ill. App. 3d 693", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3533223 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "698" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/140/0693-01" ] }, { "cite": "470 N.E.2d 1303", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 Ill. App. 3d 668", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3525456 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "672" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/128/0668-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 U.S. 981", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11341250 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/468/0981-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 U.S. 383", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3672825 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1914, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/232/0383-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 U.S. 897", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11340969 ], "weight": 30, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "903-05" }, { "page": "686-87" }, { "page": "3411-12" }, { "page": "927" }, { "page": "701" }, { "page": "3423-24" }, { "page": "904, 905" }, { "page": "686, 686" }, { "page": "3411, 3411" }, { "page": "925-26" }, { "page": "700" }, { "page": "3423" }, { "page": "913" }, { "page": "692" }, { "page": "3416" }, { "page": "912" }, { "page": "691-92" }, { "page": "3416" }, { "page": "910, 913-14, 917, 921-22, 924" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/468/0897-01" ] }, { "cite": "421 N.E.2d 1351", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 Ill. App. 3d 857", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 12143268 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "869-70" }, { "page": "870" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/96/0857-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 U.S. 471", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 450611 ], "weight": 15, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "481-82" }, { "page": "451-52" }, { "page": "414" }, { "page": "488" }, { "page": "455" }, { "page": "417" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/371/0471-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 U.S. 897", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11340969 ], "weight": 9, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "905" }, { "page": "687" }, { "page": "3412" }, { "page": "907-08" }, { "page": "688-89" }, { "page": "3413" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/468/0897-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1549, "char_count": 51919, "ocr_confidence": 0.748, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.044348983065606e-08, "percentile": 0.42483191104964035 }, "sha256": "22129cc76afee90a896216c570accc2eb4f45eb606314c39b2a3220db8b1e85f", "simhash": "1:7514b12e7705d6af", "word_count": 8503 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:15.078878+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MATTHEW JAMES, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE PINCHAM\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a jury trial defendant, Matthew James, was found guilty of murder, rape, and robbery. He was sentenced to imprisonment terms of 50 years for murder and 10 years for robbery, the sentences to run concurrently. The record reveals that on the day after the sentences were imposed, the court entered the following order: \u201cBy order of court sentences imposed for robbery ten (10) years [in the] Illinois Department of Corrections vacated. Corrected mittimus to read fifty (50) years for murder.\u201d Defendant appeals from his murder conviction. The following evidence was adduced at trial.\nOn June 26, 1983, Josephine Hayes was found dead on a couch in her apartment by the building manager. Her legs were tied, her face was covered with rags and she was wearing only a white blouse. A medical examination revealed that she had been raped and that her death was caused by strangulation.\nA few days previously, Eddie Meeks and several men had helped the victim move into her apartment. Meeks and the other men were taken into custody and questioned by the police regarding the homicide. The other men were released but the officers continued to question Meeks.\nDuring the second day of questioning, Meeks confessed that he had participated in the murder, rape, and robbery of Josephine Hayes. Meeks\u2019 confession implicated the defendant, Matthew James, in the commission of the offenses. Based on Meeks\u2019 confession, the officers arrested James. James was questioned by the police and confessed his participation in the crimes but implicated Meeks as the principal offender.\nJames and Meeks were jointly indicted for the murder, rape, robbery, and home invasion. Prior to trial, James and Meeks each moved to quash their warrantless arrests on the grounds that the police lacked probable cause to arrest either of them. They also moved to suppress their statements because, they argued, each of their statements was fruit of their illegal arrests.\nPretrial hearings were held on the suppression motions. James and Meeks contended there was no probable cause to arrest either of them and that they confessed and gave incriminating statements against each other only because they had been beaten and subjected to threats and intimidation.\nThe trial court found there was no probable cause to arrest Meeks, quashed his arrest, and suppressed his confession. The court stated:\n\u201cI find that the police in the matter of the arrest of Mr. Meeks did have probable cause to make an arrest, however, that probable cause, I believe, existed after the arrest had, in fact, been made.\nAn arrest cannot be justified by what accidentally is learned. Justification for [a] search and arrest cannot be based upon what the conditions of that arrest and search may be.\n* * *\nI do not feel it was reasonable for the police to assume that they had grounds to make an arrest of Mr. Meeks. ***.\nTherefore, the ruling is, the motion to quash the arrest of Edward Meeks is allowed, and concurrent with that is an order suppressing the statements made during the course of that arrest.\u201d\nAlthough Supreme Court Rule 604(a) (87 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)) conferred upon the State the right to appeal the trial court\u2019s order which suppressed Meeks\u2019 confession, the State did not appeal the order. Instead the State entered a nolle prosequi of the charges against Meeks, and he was discharged.\nDuring the suppression hearing, with regard to probable cause for the arrest of defendant James, Detective John Leonard, who was assigned to investigate the homicide, testified under cross-examination:\n\u201cQ. Detective Leonard, is it true that the first time you were given any information implicating Matthew James in the crime or crimes that you are investigating was on June 27, 1982?\nA. Yes sir, that\u2019s correct.\n* * *\nQ. And, Detective Leonard, you never got any information from any other source implicating Matthew James in the crime before you went to 1421 Rockwell on June 27th, to get Matthew James, did you?\nTHE COURT: Do you understand the questions?\nTHE WITNESS: Yes, correct.\nMR. FOX: You never got any information from anyone other than Edward Meeks before sending Howe or O\u2019Brien to 1421 South Rockwell?\nMR. RAMANO: Objection, asked and answered.\nTHE COURT: Ask another question.\nMR. FOX: The only information you had about Matthew James was when you sent Howe and O\u2019Brien to 1421 North Rockwell, was the information you got from Edward Meeks, is that right?\nA. Yes.\u201d\nIt is clear from Detective Leonard\u2019s testimony that Meeks\u2019 confession was the sole basis for James\u2019 arrest. There is no other evidence in the record to establish probable cause for James\u2019 arrest. The State does not contend otherwise.\nIn upholding the validity of James\u2019 arrest, the judge stated:\n\u201cI believe the police clearly did have probable cause prior to making the arrest, notwithstanding the fact that I suppressed the fruits of the Meeks arrest; and considering very carefully the case of Wong Sun versus U.S., recall very vividly the cast of characters involved therein, and I find that in a posit to this situation, to the extent I think, it directs me to deny the motion to quash the arrest of Mr. Matthews [sic].\u201d\nJames was later convicted following a jury trial during which his confession was admitted into evidence.\nI\nJames contends that his arrest was illegal because it lacked probable cause and that his confession should therefore have been suppressed. As to James\u2019 warrantless arrest, we note that the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. TV) and article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const., 1970, art. I, sec. 6), demand that a warrantless arrest be supported by probable cause to be constitutionally valid.\nAlthough in denying James\u2019 motion to quash his arrest the trial judge said that he \u201crecalled] very vividly the cast of characters involved in\u201d and had \u201cvery carefully\u201d considered Wong Sun v. United States (1963), 371 U.S. 471, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441, 83 S. Ct. 407, the trial court nevertheless failed to explain why Wong Sun was inapplicable or why Wong Sun \u201cdirected]\u201d the court to deny James\u2019 motion.\nIn Wong Sun, Federal narcotics agents in San Francisco arrested Horn Way after surveying him for six weeks. The agents found heroin in his possession. During questioning Horn Way told the agents that he had purchased an ounce of heroin the night before from Blackie Toy, proprietor of a laundry of Leavenworth Street. The agents went to the laundry on Leavenworth Street which was operated by James Wah Toy. An agent attempted to gain entry into the building by stating that he had come to pick up some laundry. Toy told the agent to come back during business hours, whereupon the agent announced his office, forced entry into the building, chased Toy down a hallway into Toy\u2019s bedroom and placed Toy under arrest.\nThe agents searched Toy\u2019s living quarters but found no narcotics. They informed Toy that Horn Way had told them that he (Horn Way) had purchased narcotics from Toy. Toy denied that he sold narcotics but stated that he knew someone who did and that he knew that person as \u201cJohnny.\u201d Toy described a house on 11th Avenue where, he told the agents, Johnny lived. Toy also described the bedroom in Johnny\u2019s house where he said Johnny kept heroin and where he and Johnny had smoked drugs the previous night. The agents went immediately to the house described by Toy and upon entering found a man in the bedroom whose name was Johnny Yee. During questioning Yee removed heroin from a bureau drawer and turned it over to the agents. Yee told the agents that Toy and Sea Dog brought the heroin to him four days previously. When questioned about the identity of Sea Dog, Toy revealed that Sea Dog was Wong Sun. The agents then went to Won Sun\u2019s home and placed him-under arrest.\nThe agents did not seek or obtain a search or arrest warrant for any of the foregoing arrests and searches. Toy and Wong Sun were charged in a two-count indictment with conspiracy to violate the narcotic laws and concealment of illegally imported heroin. They were acquitted of the conspiracy count but were found guilty of the count which charged concealment of the drugs discovered in Johnny Yee\u2019s bedroom which Yee surrendered to the agents.\nAt trial the court admitted into evidence the incriminating statements Toy made in his bedroom when he was arrested, the heroin surrendered to the agents by Johnny Yee, and Toy and Wong Sun\u2019s post-arraignment, unsigned statements. Toy and Wong Sun contended that this evidence was inadmissible because it was the fruit of their illegal, warrantless arrests.\nThe United States Court of Appeals held that the defendants\u2019 warrantless arrests were illegal under the fourth amendment because they were not based on probable cause. The court affirmed the defendants\u2019 convictions, however, on the ground that the complained-of evidence was not the fruit of either defendant\u2019s illegal arrest and was therefore properly admitted.\nThe Supreme Court agreed that the arrests of Toy and Wong Sun were without probable cause. Addressing Toy\u2019s arrest, the court held that the information given to the narcotics agents by their prisoner, Horn Way, was insufficient to establish probable cause to arrest Toy. The court pointed out that the agents had no basis to rely on Horn Way\u2019s information since he had never before provided them with information. The court further pointed out:\n\u201cIt is conceded that the officers made no attempt to obtain a warrant for Toy\u2019s arrest. The simple fact is that on the sparse information at the officers\u2019 command, no arrest warrant could have issued ***. [Citation.] The arrest warrant procedure serves to insure that the deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer will be interposed between the citizen and the police, to assess the weight and credibility of the information which the complaining officer adduces as probable cause. [Citation.] To hold that an officer may act in his own, unchecked discretion upon information too vague and from too untested a source to permit a judicial officer to accept it as probable cause for an arrest warrant, would subvert this fundamental policy.\u201d Wong Sun v. United States (1963), 371 U.S. 471, 481-82, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441, 451-52, 83 S. Ct. 407, 414.\nAfter holding that Toy\u2019s arrest was without probable cause and that his fourth amendment right to be secure against an unreasonable search and seizure had been violated, the court further held that Toy\u2019s statements in his bedroom to the agents should have been excluded and were inadmissible as evidence against Toy because the statements were fruits of Toy\u2019s unlawful arrest.\nAdditionally, the court held that the exclusion of Toy\u2019s statements required excluding the narcotics taken from Yee, whose statement led the police to arrest Toy. The court stated, \u201cWe think it clear that the narcotics were \u2018come at by the exploitation of that illegality\u2019 and hence that they may not be used against Toy.\u201d Wong Sun v. United States (1963), 371 U.S. 471, 488, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441, 455, 83 S. Ct. 407, 417.\nApplying the principles in Wong Sun governing the inadmissibility of the illegally obtained \u201cfruit of the poisonous tree\u201d to the case before us requires that the \u201cfruit of the poisonous tree,\u201d i.e., James\u2019 confession to the police, should have been suppressed. Its admission into evidence against James violated his constitutional right to be secure against an unreasonable search and seizure which right is guaranteed by the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.\nIn Wong Sun Toy was arrested solely on Horn Way\u2019s uncorroborated, incriminating statement to the arresting agents. Toy\u2019s arrest was held to be without probable cause and a violation of his fourth amendment right against an unreasonable search and seizure. Toy\u2019s post-arrest, incriminating statements were the fruit of his illegal arrest and were therefore inadmissible as evidence against him. In the case before us, James was arrested solely on Meeks\u2019 uncorroborated, incriminating statements to his arresting officers. James\u2019 arrest, like Toy\u2019s arrest in Wong Sun, was without probable cause and in violation of his fourth amendment right to be secure against an unreasonable search and seizure. James\u2019 post-arrest, incriminating statements, like Toy\u2019s, should have been suppressed and should not have been admitted into evidence.\nRegarding Meeks\u2019 arrest, the record fails to support the trial court\u2019s ruling that the police \u201cclearly did have probable cause prior to making the arrest, notwithstanding the fact that [the court] suppressed the fruits of Meeks\u2019 arrest.\u201d The court failed to state on what evidence it relied to establish probable cause for Meeks\u2019 arrest, aside from Meeks\u2019 confession to the officers. Our thorough review of the record fails to reveal any other evidence, and the State does not contend that any other evidence exists.\nThe State\u2019s reliance on People v. Bell (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 857, 421 N.E.2d 1351, as authority for James\u2019 arrest and the admission of his post-arrest confession, is misplaced. In Bell, Hosea Banks, a private citizen who was not under arrest, furnished the investigating officers with highly probative, independent and corroborative evidence on which the officers, in part, predicated their arrests. The appellate court pointed out that probable cause for Bell\u2019s arrest was that Banks had identified a picture of the body as that of his brother, that Banks went with the police to a residence and examined a telephone number on a door which Banks said was similar to his brother\u2019s number, and that Banks identified to the police addresses, a nickname and a threat which were all written on the door. Also, Banks accompanied the police and identified one of the alleged offenders walking down the street. This offender was arrested for murder and was later identified as one of the defendants. 96 Ill. App. 3d 857, 869-70, 421 N.E.2d 1351.\nConcluding that these facts established probable cause for the defendants\u2019 arrest independent of the accomplice\u2019s confession, the court held:\n\u201cHosea Banks was a private citizen and not a paid professional informant. The police officers, therefore, were justified in relying upon his information without independent verification or examination of his reliability. [Citations.] Viewing the totality of the facts and circumstances known to the police officers at the time of Hayes\u2019 arrest, we find that the trial court\u2019s determination that the officers had probable cause to arrest Hayes was not manifestly erroneous.\nAs to the lawfulness of Bell\u2019s arrest, where a co-offender who is under arrest and in custody supplies the police with a \u2018tip\u2019 implicating alleged accomplices such statement of the co-offender may constitute probable cause for the arrest of the alleged participating accomplices. [Citation.]\nIn the instant case, Hayes, Lonnie Hampton and Andrew Hampton all independently identified Bell as also being involved in the kidnapping and murder of Joseph Banks. This information would have led a man of reasonable caution to believe that Bell had participated in the offense. The police thus had probable cause to arrest Bell.\nBecause defendants\u2019 arrests were based on probable cause and therefore lawful, the admission of defendants\u2019 statements into evidence was proper.\u201d 96 Ill. App. 3d 857, 870, 421 N.E.2d 1351.\nBell is not authority for James\u2019 arrest or the admission of his confession into evidence in the case before us.\nAlso, the State and the dissent urge that the defendant\u2019s arrest in the instant case was constitutionally valid under the good-faith doctrine pronounced by the Supreme Court in United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677, 104 S. Ct. 3405. Leon is not analogous to and should not be applied to the case before us. In Leon, unlike in the case at bar, the good-faith issue was presented in the trial court and in the court of appeals and was properly presented, briefed and argued in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court pointed out:\n\u201cIn response to a request from the Government, the [District] court made clear that Officer Rombach had acted in good faith, but it [the District Court] rejected the Government\u2019s suggestion that the fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where the evidence is seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant.\nThe District Court denied the government\u2019s motion for reconsideration ***.\n*** [T]he District Court properly suppressed the fruits of the search. The Court of Appeals refused the Government\u2019s invitation to recognize a good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.\nThe Government\u2019s petition for certiorari expressly declined to seek review of the lower courts\u2019 determinations that the search warrant was unsupported by probable cause and presented only the question \u2018[w]hether the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the admission of evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently held to be defective.\u2019 We granted certiorari to consider the propriety of such a modification.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 468 U.S. 897, 903-05, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677, 686-87, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3411-12.\nIn his concurring opinion, Justice Blackmun wrote:\n\u2018\u201cThe Court today holds that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment by officers acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate need not be excluded, as a matter of federal law, from the case-in-chief of federal and state criminal prosecutions. In so doing, the Court writes another chapter in the volume of Fourth Amendment law opened by Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652 (1914). I join the Court\u2019s opinion in this case and the one in Massachusetts v. Sheppard [(1984), 468 U.S. 981, 82 L. Ed. 2d 737, 104 S. Ct. 3424] because I believe that the rule announced today advances the legitimate interests of the criminal justice system without sacrificing the individual rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. I write separately, however, to underscore what I regard as the unavoidably provisional nature of today\u2019s decisions.\u201d 468 U.S. 897, 927, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677, 701, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3423-24 (Blackmun, J., concurring).\nIn the case before us the good-faith argument was not relied upon in the trial court as in Leon. At the hearing of the defendant\u2019s suppression motion, the State did not raise the good-faith argument, and the defendant relied on a lack of probable cause for his arrest and attenuation. The trial court denied the motion on those grounds.\nThe officer\u2019s good faith was not an issue. Because the good-faith contention was not presented or ruled upon by the trial court and was not properly presented, briefed, or argued in this court, it is inappropriate for this court to decide this issue.\nIt is inappropriate for this court to decide the good-faith contention also because this, an intermediate court of review, is not the proper tribunal to decide a constitutional question of first impression which so radically modifies State law. Again it should be noted that in Leon the Supreme Court stated that the district court \u201crejected the Government\u2019s suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant^]\u201d and that \u201c[t]he Court of Appeals refused the Government\u2019s invitation to recognize a good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.\u201d (United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897, 904, 905, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677, 686, 686, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3411, 3411.) Of greater significance, the Supreme Court declared:\n\u201cThe Court of Appeals applied the prevailing legal standards to Officer Rombach\u2019s warrant application and concluded that the application could not support the magistrate\u2019s probable-cause determination. ***\nHaving determined that the warrant should not have issued, the Court of Appeals understandably declined to adopt a modification of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule that this Court had not previously sanctioned.\" (Emphasis added.) 468 U.S. 897, 925-26, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677, 700, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3423.\nThe Supreme Court further observed in Leon: \u201cAs yet, we have not recognized any form of good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.\u201d (468 U.S. 897, 913, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677, 692, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3416.) But after modifying the fourth amendment exclusionary rule in Leon so as not to bar the use in the prosecution\u2019s case in chief of evidence obtained by officers, who acted in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be invalid for lack of probable cause, the Supreme Court further proclaimed: \u201c[N]o Fourth Amendment decision marking a \u2018clear break with the past\u2019 has been applied retroactively.\u201d 468 U.S. 897, 912, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677, 691-92, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3416.\nIt should be further noted that Leon was a Federal case which exclusively involved the Supreme Court\u2019s interpretation and application of the Federal Constitution \u2014 the fourth amendment. Leon did not involve the interpretation or application of the law of search and seizure under article I, section 6 of the Illinois Constitution in a State court proceeding for violation of a State criminal statute.\nIn Leon the Supreme Court modified the fourth amendment exclusionary rule to admit evidence in the prosecution\u2019s case in chief seized by officers acting in good-faith reliance on and in execution of an invalid search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate. The court did not indicate that such a modification should or would be extended to a warrantless arrest.\nThe language and rationale of Leon indicate that the good-faith modification of the fourth amendment is inapplicable in the absence of a magistrate\u2019s warrant. The court exclusively and expressly relied on the magistrate\u2019s issuance of the search warrant as the prerequisite for its good-faith modification. The court stated:\n\u201cStanding to invoke the [exclusionary] rule has thus been limited to cases in which the prosecution seeks to use the fruits of an illegal search or seizure against the victim of police misconduct. [Citations.]\n* * *\nBecause a search warrant \u2018provides the detached scrutiny of a neutral magistrate, which is a more reliable safeguard against improper searches than the hurried judgment of a law enforcement officer \u201cengaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.\u201d \u2019 [citations], we have expressed a strong preference for warrants and declared that \u2018in a doubtful or marginal case a search under a warrant may be sustainable where without one it would fail.\u2019 [Citations.] *** [T]he preference for warrants is most appropriately effectuated by according \u2018great deference\u2019 to a magistrate\u2019s determination. [Citations.]\n* * *\nJudges and magistrates are not adjuncts to the law enforcement team; as neutral judicial officers, they have no stake in the outcome of particular criminal prosecutions. The threat of exclusion thus cannot be expected significantly to deter them [from misconduct]. Imposition of the exclusionary sanction is not necessary meaningfully to inform judicial officers of their errors ***.\n* * *\nIn the ordinary case, an officer cannot be expected to question the magistrate\u2019s probable-cause determination or his judgment that the form of the warrant is technically sufficient. \u2018[0]nce the warrant issues, there is literally nothing more the policeman can do in seeking to comply with the law. [Citation.]\u2019\n* * *\n[F]or \u2018a warrant issued by a magistrate normally suffices to establish\u2019 that a law enforcement officer has \u2018acted in good-faith in conducting the search. [Citation.]\u2019\n* * *\nWhen officers have acted pursuant to a warrant, the prosecution should ordinarily be able to establish objective good faith without a substantial expenditure of judicial time.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 468 U.S. 897, 910, 913-14, 917, 921-22, 924, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677. 690. 692-93. 695. 697. 699. 104 S. Ct. 3405. 3414. 3416-17, 3418, 3420, 3422.\nFrom the foregoing language it is clear that the good-faith modification of the exclusionary rule is premised on the officers\u2019 acquisition of a warrant from a detached and neutral magistrate. It is also clear that the court made \u201cthe imprimature of a judicially issued warrant *** a factor [if not the factor] in determining whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies,\u201d and contrary to the dissent\u2019s contention in the instant case, this court has not \u201cput form over substance.\u201d\nThe following suppositious language of the dissent cannot be supported:\n\u201cIn the instant case, had the involved officers secured a warrant for the arrest of Meeks from a detached and neutral judge and they objectively reasonably relied on it in arresting Meeks, the arrest of James and use of his confession would without doubt have been constitutionally permissible even if the Meeks warrant were later found to be invalid.\u201d\nThe officers did not have probable cause nor did they obtain, attempt to obtain, or could they have obtained a warrant for the arrest of Meeks. In the absence of a warrant or probable cause for Meeks\u2019 arrest, the dissent\u2019s assertion \u201cthat the original warrantless arrest of Meeks was in good faith\u201d is groundless. A fortiori, a good-faith invalid arrest warrant for Meeks would not support a determination that the officers\u2019 warrantless arrest of James was in good faith. Leon does not hold that the good-faith modification of the fourth amendment exclusionary rule is applicable to a warrantless arrest.\nIn People v. Joseph (1984), 128 Ill. App. 3d 668, 470 N.E.2d 1303, the defendant\u2019s arrest was based on information received by the arresting officers from a police mobile computer unit that defendant was wanted on a bond-forfeiture warrant which had, in fact, been recalled 11 days earlier. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the drugs seized from him when he was arrested. The trial court denied the motion. On review the State asked the court to consider the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677,104 S. Ct. 3405. This court refused and held:\n\u201cWe are not convinced that the good-faith exception recognized by the Supreme Court in Leon is applicable to the case at bar. In that case, the court dealt with evidence seized by police officers acting on a facially valid search warrant which was issued by a State court judge after an independent determination of probable cause. In the case at bar, no such safeguard or intervening factor is present.\n* * *\nMoreover, it is our opinion that the good-faith reliance of the arresting officer, in acting upon information provided to him through police channels, cannot overcome the intrusion made upon defendant\u2019s fourth amendment rights.\u201d People v. Joseph (1984), 128 Ill. App. 3d 668, 672, 470 N.E.2d 1303.\nIn People v. Potter (1986), 140 Ill. App. 3d 693, 489 N.E.2d 334, the defendants, who were used-car dealers, moved to suppress evidence seized during an inspection conducted under the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 95V2, par. 5\u2014403). This court held that the warrantless search of the defendants\u2019 records was not authorized under the statute and that the seized records were properly excluded. The court stated:\n\u201cFinally, the State argues for a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule (United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. [897], 82 L. Ed. 2d 677, 104 S. Ct. 3405). Such an exception applies only to good-faith violations of the fourth amendment resulting from searches conducted pursuant to technically invalid warrants. The exception is clearly inapplicable since the exclusionary rule applied here is not based on the fourth amendment and there was no warrant issued.\u201d People v. Potter (1986), 140 Ill. App. 3d 693, 698, 489 N.E.2d 334.\nA final comment is deserved on the dissent\u2019s conclusion that Leon holds that the fourth amendment \u201cnever was intended to confer a benefit on all guilty defendants.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Such language or inference is not to be found in Leon. Surely the court did not hold or intend to hold in Leon that the fourth amendment conferred rights on only some guilty defendants.\nThe State contends that James knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and that intervening circumstances attenuated any unlawful taint from his illegal arrest. This contention is unacceptable. First, attenuation of James\u2019 confession to remove the unlawful taint of his unlawful arrest was not the basis on which the trial court admitted his confession into evidence. The trial court did not hold that James\u2019 arrest was illegal or that his confession was attenuated. Rather, the trial court held that the arrest was lawful and attenuation of James\u2019 confession was therefore not considered by the trial court in determining the validity and admissibility of his confession.\nSecond, there was no evidence on which attenuation could be predicated, except the officers\u2019 Miranda warnings to James, which are inadequate for the purpose the State advances. Our decision on this point is controlled by Brown v. Illinois (1975), 422 U.S. 590, 45 L. Ed. 2d-416, 95 S. Ct. 2254. In that case Brown was arrested without a warrant for the murder of Page Corpus after the police had obtained a list of Corpus\u2019 acquaintances, which included Brown\u2019s name. Brown was given his Miranda rights and then questioned about Corpus\u2019 murder. During questioning Brown confessed his involvement, with Jimmy Claggett, in the murder of Corpus. The officers toured several areas with Brown in search of Claggett. After about 21/2 hours the officers arrested Claggett. A few hours later Brown was again given Miranda warnings and a court-reported confession was taken.\nBrown and Claggett were jointly indicted for Corpus\u2019 murder. Prior to trial, Brown moved to quash liis arrest and suppress his confessions on the grounds that his arrest was illegal and that his confessions were obtained in violation of his fourth amendment right. The motions were denied and Brown was subsequently tried and convicted for murder.\nOn appeal the Supreme Court of Illinois held that Brown\u2019s arrest was without probable cause and therefore was illegal. (People v. Brown (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 312.) The Illinois Supreme Court concluded, however, that the Miranda warnings served to break the causal connection between Brown\u2019s illegal arrest and his confessions and that Brown\u2019s confessions were sufficiently an act of free will to purge the taint of the illegal arrest. Citing Wong Sun v. United States (1963), 371 U.S. 471, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441, 83 S. Ct. 407, the court held that admission of Brown\u2019s confession was not error.\nThe Supreme Court of the United States stated that it surmised that the Illinois Supreme Court held that Miranda warnings in and of themselves broke the causal chain between the illegal arrest and the confession such that the confession, even if induced by the continuing effects of unconstitutional imprisonment, was admissible so long as it was voluntary and not coerced. The court stated, \u201cBecause of our concern about the implication of our holding in Wong Sun v. United States [citation] to the facts of Brown\u2019s case, we granted certiorari.\u201d Brown v. Illinois (1975), 422 U.S. 590, 597, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416, 423, 95 S. Ct. 2254, 2258.\nThe court explained that Miranda rights are premised on the fifth amendment\u2019s guarantee against coerced self-incrimination rather than on the fourth amendment right to be secure against an unreasonable search and seizure. The court further explained that even if statements are found to be voluntary under the fifth amendment, such statements may nevertheless be inadmissible if obtained in violation of the fourth amendment. The court stated:\n\u201cIn order for the causal chain, between the illegal arrest and the statements made subsequent thereto, to be broken, Wong Sun requires not merely that the statement meet the Fifth Amendment standard of voluntariness but that it be \u2018sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint.\u2019 [Citation.] Wong Sun thus mandates consideration of a statement\u2019s admissibility in light of the distinct policies and interests of the Fourth Amendment.\u201d Brown v. Illinois (1975), 422 U.S. 590, 602, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416, 426, 95 S. Ct. 2254, 2261.\nThe court further pointed out in Brown that waiver of Miranda warnings is but one of several factors to be considered in determining whether a confession has been obtained by exploiting an illegal arrest. Other factors involved in the decision-making process of the admissibility of a confession following an illegal arrest, the court held, are the temporal proximity of the illegal arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. (Brown v. Illinois (1975), 422 U.S. 590, 603-04, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416, 427, 95 S. Ct. 2254, 2261-62.) The court concluded:\n\u201c[T]he State failed to sustain the burden of showing that the evidence in question was admissible under Wong Sun.\nBrown\u2019s first statement was separated from his illegal arrest by less than two hours, and there was no intervening event of significance whatsoever. In its essentials, his situation is remarkably like that of James Wah Toy in Wong Sun. We could hold Brown\u2019s first statement admissible only if we overrule Wong Sun. We decline to do so. And the second statement was clearly the result and the fruit of the first.\u201d 422 U.S. 540, 604-05, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416, 427-28, 95 S. Ct. 2254, 2262.\nIn the case at bar, it is significant to note that the temporal proximity of James\u2019 arrest and confessions is practically identical to the temporal proximity in Brown. In its brief before this court, the State acknowledged that only \u201capproximately one-half hour separated defendant\u2019s arrest and the first statement, and the next two statements were made two hours after defendants\u2019 arrest.\u201d The State contends, however, that temporal proximity \u201cis the least determinative factor involved in determining whether there is a causal connection between an arrest and a subsequent statement.\u201d Whether it is or is not the least determinative factor, the temporal proximity in this case is practically identical to the temporal proximity in Brown. In each case the temporal proximity was inadequate to remove the taint of the illegal arrest from the defendant\u2019s confession.\nThe State additionally argues that there were intervening circumstances which established that James\u2019 confession was not obtained by exploitation of his illegal arrest. The State contends that the intervening factors which purged James\u2019 confession from the taint of his illegal arrest were the arresting officers\u2019 statements to James that James was lying when he denied any involvement in the homicide and rape and that Meeks\u2019 confession implicated James in the commission of the offenses.\nThese purported intervening factors are exceedingly less persuasive than were the intervening factors in Brown. In Brown, after the officers gave Brown Miranda warnings, they told him that they knew that he had fired a shot from a revolver into the ceiling of a poolroom when he became angry for having been cheated in a dice game and that a bullet had been obtained from the poolroom ceiling and was taken to the crime laboratory to be compared with the bullets taken from the body of the murdered victim. To each of these statements Brown responded, \u201cOh you know about that.\u201d Brown then admitted his involvement in the murder in a typed, 20- to 25-minute question and answer statement. (Brown v. Illinois (1975), 422 U.S. 590, 594, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416, 421-22, 95 S. Ct. 2254, 2257.) Rejecting the arresting officers\u2019 comments to Brown as well as Brown\u2019s responses thereto as intervening factors which purged Brown\u2019s confession of the taint of his illegal arrest, the Supreme Court stated, \u201cBrown\u2019s first statement was separated from his illegal arrest by less than two hours, and there was no intervening event of significance whatsoever.\u201d (Emphasis added.) (422 U.S. 590, 604, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416, 428, 95 S. Ct. 2254, 2262.) Likewise, in the case at bar, there were no intervening events of any significance whatsoever to purge the taint of James\u2019 illegal arrest.\nAlso in Brown, Brown\u2019s confession implicated Jimmy Claggett as a participant in the murder. The officers and Brown toured several places over an extended period of time looking for Claggett. After several hours they found Claggett and arrested him. Later, at the police station and after again receiving Miranda warnings, Brown made a second court-reported, typed confession. The Supreme Court held that none of these factors attenuated Brown\u2019s second confession and stated, \u201cThe fact that Brown had made one statement, believed by him to be admissible, and his cooperation with the arresting and interrogating officers in the search for Claggett, with his anticipation of leniency, bolstered the pressures for him to give the second, or at least vitiated any incentive on his part to avoid self-incrimination.\u201d Brown v. Illinois (1975), 422 U.S. 590, 605 n.12, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416, 428 n.12, 95 S. Ct. 2254, 2262 n.12.\nIn Taylor v. Alabama (1982), 457 U.S. 687, 73 L. Ed. 2d 314, 102 S. Ct. 2664, the Supreme Court again reiterated and reapplied the principles enunciated in Wong Sun and Brown on the inadmissibility of confessions obtained following an illegal arrest. In Taylor police officers, without a warrant or probable cause, arrested Omar Taylor for the robbery of a grocery store. While in custody, Taylor signed a waiver-oi-Miranda-rights form and thereafter gave a written confession. At his trial Taylor objected to the admission of his confession into evidence. He argued that his confession should have been suppressed because it was the fruit of his illegal arrest. The trial court overruled Taylor\u2019s objection, and he was subsequently convicted. The Supreme Court reversed and held that Taylor\u2019s confession was the fruit of his illegal arrest and should have been suppressed. The court rejected the State\u2019s argument that intervening events following Taylor\u2019s arrest severed his confession from his illegal arrest.\nThe State argued in Taylor that the six-hour period between Taylor\u2019s illegal arrest and his confession was significantly longer than the period of time in Brown v. Illinois (1975), 422 U.S. 590, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416, 95 S. Ct. 2254, and that therefore there was sufficient attenuation to purge the confession of the taint of the illegal arrest. The court responded, \u201c[A] difference of a few hours is not significant where, as here, petitioner was in police custody, unrepresented by counsel, and he was questioned on several occasions ***.\u201d (Taylor v. Alabama (1982), 457 U.S. 687, 691, 73 L. Ed. 2d 314, 320, 102 S. Ct. 2664, 2667.) The State further argued that because the defendant was given Miranda warnings on three different occasions, there was attenuation. The court responded that the number of times Taylor was given Miranda warnings and the State\u2019s reliance thereon was misplaced. Additionally, the court rejected the State\u2019s contention that Taylor\u2019s visit with his girlfriend and a male companion before he confessed broke the connection between the illegal arrest and the confession. 457 U.S. 687, 691, 73 L. Ed. 2d 314, 320, 102 S. Ct. 2664, 2667.\nAddressing the question of the admissibility of a custodial confession following an illegal arrest, in a recent decision, People v. Thomas (1984), 123 Ill. App. 3d 857, 863, 463 N.E.2d 832, we stated:\n\u201cWhen a confession is obtained from a defendant through custodial interrogation after an illegal arrest that confession must be suppressed unless the State can meet its burden of establishing that intervening events have broken the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the confession so as to render the confession an act of free will. (Brown v. Illinois (1975), 422 U.S. 590, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416, 95 S. Ct. 2254; Taylor v. Alabama (1982), 457 U.S. 687, 73 L. Ed. 2d 314, 102 S. Ct. 2664.) In Brown the court identified a number of factors to be considered in making this evaluation. The fact that Miranda warnings have been given and understood, thus establishing voluntariness for purposes of the fifth amendment, is only a threshold requirement to be met by the State in establishing attenuation of the taint of the initial illegality. Other factors to be considered are the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances such as an appearance by the defendant before a magistrate (a factor found to attenuate the taint in Johnson v. Louisiana (1972), 406 U.S. 356, 32 L. Ed. 2d 152, 92 S. Ct. 1620, a case cited by Brown as illustrating this factor), and the purpose and flagran cy of the officers\u2019 conduct in making the arrest.\u201d\nAs we have shown in the instant case, the principles enunciated in People v. Thomas (1984), 123 Ill. App. 3d 857, 463 N.E.2d 832, Wong Sun v. United States (1963), 371 U.S. 471, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441, 83 S. Ct. 407, Brown v. Illinois (1975), 422 U.S. 590, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416, 96 S. Ct. 2254, and Taylor v. Alabama (1982), 457 U.S. 687, 73 L. Ed. 2d 314, 102 S. Ct. 2664, demand that James\u2019 confessions should have been suppressed because they were the fruit of his illegal arrest. (See Dunaway v. New York (1979), 442 U.S. 200, 60 L. Ed. 2d 824, 99 S. Ct. 2248.) We conclude that neither the intervening events nor the temporal proximity of James\u2019 arrest and his confessions attenuated his confessions from the taint of his illegal arrest. In view of our holding that James\u2019 confessions were inadmissible, we need not address the next issue, i.e., the purpose and alleged flagrancy of the officers\u2019 misconduct.\nDefendant further argues for reversal that he was denied a fair trial because the court\u2019s comments to the jury were calculated to affect the verdict by discouraging findings on only some of the counts. The facts on which this contention is premised are as follows.\nThe jury returned verdicts finding James guilty of murder, robbery, and rape. During the polling of the jury, the following colloquy occurred:\n\u201cTHE COURT: Miss Frigan, were these and are these your verdicts?\nJUROR FRIGAN: They cannot be separated? All three accounts [sic] have to be together? Those are\u2014\nTHE COURT: Well, Miss Frigan, were these your verdicts and are these your verdicts now?\nJUROR FRIGAN: If rape and murder is regarded the same thing under the law, this is my verdict.\nTHE COURT: Well, the instructions that you have been given define both the offenses of rape, murder and robbery. Now, if these are not your verdicts or were not your verdicts, I would ask the jury to retire and continue your deliberations.\nTHE CLERK: Joanne-\nTHE COURT: One moment. I\u2019m not sure that we have a verdict at this point. Miss Frigan, are you indicating this is not presently your verdict?\nJUROR FRIGAN: No. I would just like an answer to my question. Could I have that?\nTHE COURT: Are you unsure of your verdict at this point.\nJUROR FRIGAN: I\u2019m unsure of the law.\nTHE COURT: I cannot discuss the law with you. The law is contained in the instructions. If you have a specific question regarding the law or the meaning of instructions, I will hear the question in writing from you or from the jurors. Now, do you wish to retire and continue your deliberations? Miss Frigan?\nJUROR FRIGAN: I would like to have this question answered.\nTHE COURT: Are you indicating now that this is not your verdict at the present time?\nJUROR FRIGAN: Yes.\nTHE COURT: All right. I\u2019ll ask the jury to retire and continue their deliberations. Should there be any questions, I would ask that you compose them in writing and I will respond to the questions in writing. Please retire and continue your deliberations.\u201d\nThe jury retired and further deliberated, during which they submitted the following question to the court in writing:\n\u201cIf the defendant robbed and raped the victim, is he also guilty of her murder when the law is applied to this case[?] Thanks.\u201d\nThe trial court did not answer the inquiry. Instead it read to the lawyers the instruction it intended to give the jury should they fail to return verdicts by a designated hour. Before that designated hour, however, the jury indicated that it had reached its verdict. They were brought into court and their verdicts were read. The defendant was found guilty of murder, rape and robbery.\nWe decline to rule on this issue as well because we reverse the defendant\u2019s convictions on other grounds and remand for a new trial, and it is unlikely that these inquiries from the jury will recur on retrial. Because the judgment and sentence are reversed, we also decline to rule on the defendant\u2019s 50-year extended-term-imprisonment sentence, which the defendant contends is excessive.\nThe judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nSULLIVAN, P.J., concurs.\nAt the sentencing hearing, the judge stated, \u201cI believe this is a felony-murder case. I believe that\u2019s what the verdict was based on, so, the rape was an element of the murder. So I believe the rape therefore is assumed in the murder conviction.\u201d\nThe pertinent points argued in defendant\u2019s brief for reversal were (1) \u201c[b]eeause defendant\u2019s arrest was unlawful as the product of a codefendant\u2019s confession [which was] suppressed as the fruit of the [codefendant\u2019s] illegal arrest, defendant\u2019s resulting confession was thereby tainted and should have been suppressed;\u201d and (2) \u201c[w]here defendant James confessed only after being confronted with codefendant Meeks\u2019 illegally secured confession, the [James\u2019] confession became inadmissible and should have been suppressed.\u201d\nThe State\u2019s brief in this court for the first time raised the good-faith argument. The State\u2019s meager good-faith argument at page 14 of its 32-page brief is as follows:\n\u201cMost especially, however, as is recognized by all the relevant authorities, the most important factor is the purpose and flagrancy of the purported official misconduct, Taylor, supra, 102 S. Ct. at 2667, in order to serve the proper purpose of the exclusionary rule \u2014 to deter improper police conduct. Gabbard, supra, 78 Ill. 2d at 780-79. In the case at hand, that purpose would not be served at all where there is no question that probable cause existed to arrest defendant, and where the police acted reasonably and in good faith effectuating the arrest of defendant. *** Thus, the purpose of the exclusionary rule is not served where the police acted reasonably and in good faith in arresting defendant.\nConsequently, even if the Court should conclude that defendant\u2019s arrest was illegal, defendant's motion to quash the arrest and to suppress statements made by him thereafter, was properly denied by the trial court where those statements were purged of any taint stemming from the arrest by virtue of an intervening event following the arrest, the complete lack of any improper police purpose in making the arrest, ***.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nLeon was decided by the Supreme Court on July 5, 1984, before oral argument of the instant case in this court. After oral argument the State\u2019s request to cite Leon as additional authority in this case was granted. The State\u2019s request in pertinent part merely stated:\n\u201c2. In the case at bar, defendant raises the issue of whether the fruits of a past unlawful arrest of another which led to his own arrest and confession so tainted his confession that the trial court should have suppressed his confession;\n3. The opinion on United States v. Leon, 104 S. Ct. 3405 (1984), herein attached, discusses this very issue in the analogous context of search warrants and would be helpful in the resolution of this point;\n4. This case was not previously included in the People\u2019s brief.\nWHEREFORE, the People of the State of Illinois respectfully pray that this Honorable Court grant this Motion to Cite Additional Authority.\u201d\nWe again note that the trial court ruled that James\u2019 arrest was legal and that his confession was not invalid by reason of an illegal arrest of him.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE PINCHAM" }, { "text": "JUSTICE MURRAY,\ndissenting:\nThe decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677, 104 S. Ct. 3405, compels me to dissent. In Leon a search warrant was ultimately found to be invalid because the affidavit in support of its issuance was insufficient to establish probable cause. In finding that the involved officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on the search warrant which had been issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, the court created a \u201cgood faith\u201d exception to the exclusionary rule, holding that the rule should not be applied to bar evidence obtained as a result of the invalid warrant under these circumstances. In reaching this determination the court reasoned that \u201cin the Fourth Amendment context, the exclusionary rule can be modified somewhat without jeopardizing its ability to perform its intended functions.\u201d (Emphasis added.) (468 U.S. 897, 905, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677, 687, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3412.) The court further stated that although the exclusionary rule was designed to deter police misconduct in searches and seizures in violation of the fourth amendment, it never was intended to confer a benefit on all guilty defendants and,\n\u201c[particularly when law enforcement officers have acted in objective good faith or their transgressions have been minor, the magnitude of the benefit conferred on such guilty defendants offends basic concepts of the criminal justice system.\u201d 468 U.S. 897, 907-08, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677, 688-89, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3413.\nIn the instant case, had the involved officers secured a warrant for the arrest of Meeks from a detached and neutral judge and they objectively reasonably relied on it in arresting Meeks, the arrest of James and use of his confession would without doubt have been constitutionally permissible even if the Meeks warrant were later found to be invalid. In light of the foregoing, I am therefore of the opinion that the Lem good-faith exception should be applied to cases where, as here, a warrantless arrest is made in good faith based upon evidence obtained as a result of the prior arrest of another party which is later found to be illegal. To make the imprimatur of a judicially issued warrant, most often issued ex parte, a factor in determining whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies is putting form over substance.\nHere the record discloses that the original warrantless arrest of Meeks was in good faith, even though suppressible because probable cause emerged only after his confession. However, the subsequent arrest of James was not only then based on probable cause, i.e., Meeks\u2019 implication of him in the crime, but also made in good faith. Notwithstanding the absence of a warrant, therefore, the arrest of James meets the Leon good-faith test and James\u2019 subsequent voluntary confession, made after being given Miranda warnings, was evidence untainted by the \u201cforbidden fruit\u201d involved in the original Meeks\u2019 arrest.\nJames also raised issues not addressed by the majority. Since they were not, I do not feel it appropriate to comment upon them.", "type": "dissent", "author": "JUSTICE MURRAY," } ], "attorneys": [ "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Donald S. Honchell, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.", "Richard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Michael E. Shabat, Frank G. Zelezinski, and William F. Dorner, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MATTHEW JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 83\u20141323\nOpinion filed October 17, 1986.\nMURRAY, J., dissenting.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Donald S. Honchell, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nRichard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Michael E. Shabat, Frank G. Zelezinski, and William F. Dorner, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0214-01", "first_page_order": 236, "last_page_order": 257 }