(725 ILCS 5/114-12)
(from Ch. 38, par. 114-12)
Motion to Suppress Evidence Illegally Seized.
(a) A defendant aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the
court for the return of property and to suppress as evidence anything so
obtained on the ground that:
(1) The search and seizure without a warrant was
(2) The search and seizure with a warrant was illegal
because the warrant is insufficient on its face; the evidence seized is not that described in the warrant; there was not probable cause for the issuance of the warrant; or, the warrant was illegally executed.
(b) The motion shall be in writing and state facts showing wherein the
search and seizure were unlawful. The judge shall receive evidence on any
issue of fact necessary to determine the motion and the burden of proving
that the search and seizure were unlawful shall be on the defendant. If the
motion is granted the property shall be restored, unless otherwise subject
to lawful detention, and it shall not be admissible in evidence against the
movant at any trial.
(1) If a defendant seeks to suppress evidence because
of the conduct of a peace officer in obtaining the evidence, the State may urge that the peace officer's conduct was taken in a reasonable and objective good faith belief that the conduct was proper and that the evidence discovered should not be suppressed if otherwise admissible. The court shall not suppress evidence which is otherwise admissible in a criminal proceeding if the court determines that the evidence was seized by a peace officer who acted in good faith.
(2) "Good faith" means whenever a peace officer
(i) pursuant to a search or an arrest warrant
obtained from a neutral and detached judge, which warrant is free from obvious defects other than non-deliberate errors in preparation and contains no material misrepresentation by any agent of the State, and the officer reasonably believed the warrant to be valid; or
(ii) pursuant to a warrantless search incident to
an arrest for violation of a statute or local ordinance which is later declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalidated.
(3) This amendatory Act of 1987 shall not be
construed to limit the enforcement of any appropriate civil remedy or criminal sanction in actions pursuant to other provisions of law against any individual or government entity found to have conducted an unreasonable search or seizure.
(4) This amendatory Act of 1987 does not apply to
unlawful electronic eavesdropping or wiretapping.
(c) The motion shall be made before trial unless opportunity therefor
did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the grounds for the motion.
If the motion is made during trial, and the court determines that the
motion is not untimely, and the court conducts a hearing on the merits and
enters an order suppressing the evidence, the court shall terminate the
trial with respect to every defendant who was a party to the hearing and
who was within the scope of the order of suppression, without further
proceedings, unless the State files a written notice that there will be no
interlocutory appeal from such order of suppression. In the event of such
termination, the court shall proceed with the trial of other defendants not
thus affected. Such termination of trial shall be proper and shall not bar
subsequent prosecution of the identical charges and defendants; however, if
after such termination the State fails to prosecute the interlocutory
appeal until a determination of the merits of the appeal by the reviewing
court, the termination shall be improper within the meaning of subparagraph
(a)(3) of Section 3-4 of the Criminal Code of 2012 and subsequent prosecution of such defendants upon such
charges shall be barred.
(d) The motion shall be made only before a court with jurisdiction to
try the offense.
(e) The order or judgment granting or denying the motion shall state the
findings of facts and conclusions of law upon which the order or judgment
(Source: P.A. 97-1150, eff. 1-25-13.)