Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Marquez v. People

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided July 26, 1991No. 3—91—0464Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

PRESIDING JUSTICE STOUDER,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I disagree with the majority’s decision not to follow the fourth district precedent regarding the issue of the grand jury’s power to obtain head hair samples. As in the instant case, in In re September 1981 Grand Jury (1982), 104 Ill. App. 3d 94, 432 N.E.2d 625, the fourth district court was presented with a prearrest, precharge situation. The court went through an extensive analysis of the applicable cases, including those relied on by the majority in this case. (See Schmerber v. California (1966), 384 U.S. 757, 16 L. Ed. 2d…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. United States v. DionisioSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. United States v. MaraSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. People v. CohnAppellate Court of Illinois · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API