Schedule a Free Consultation|
Call 815-740-4025
-
- Home
- Our Firm
- Criminal Defense
- Assault & Battery
- Domestic Battery / Domestic Violence
- DUI/DWI
- Drug Crimes
- Driver's License Reinstatement
- Speeding Tickets, Traffic Offenses & Violations
- CDL Violations
- Gun & Weapons Charges
- Felony Crimes
- Misdemeanor Crimes
- Juvenile Crimes
- Expungement & Record Sealing
- Resisting Arrest / Obstructing the Police
- Retail Theft & Shoplifting
- Police Questioning: When Miranda Warnings Are Required
- Media
- Blog
- Contact
Recent Blog Posts
Illinois Stingray Law Headed to the Governor
Over the last few years, cell phone technology has been a major point of contention between law enforcement and the general public. Police and investigative agencies, as one might expect, have sought to exploit available technology to track and build cases against alleged criminals and those who were known to have committed crimes. That very same technology, however, can be used in a manner that feels very threatening to private, law-abiding citizens. Legislation and case law around the country have been slowly limiting how law enforcement officials can access, use, and store digital information, several cases even going all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police and other investigative bodies may not search a person’s cell phone without a warrant. While many heralded the ruling as a victory for the Fourth Amendment rights, cell phones can offer a great deal of information even without being physically searched. Many police departments have begun using devices that mimic a cell phone tower, allowing officials to track cell phones within a certain radius. The most popular brand of cell-site simulator is known as a Stingray, and at least a dozen states, including Illinois, have legislation pending that would limit the use of such devices.
Driving Privileges Following a DUI Offense
Driving under the influence of alcohol or any drug can mean severe consequences, especially when it results in bodily injury and fatality. Even the least tragic DUI offenses can still cause irrevocable damage, however. When a driver is pulled over and found to be operating under the influence, their driving record as well as their driving privileges can be affected instantly, triggering consequences that can follow them for months and even years.
New Laws Concerning Driving Privileges After a DUI
Operating a vehicle under the influence has long had the ability to impact a person’s freedom to drive, but new state laws that began in January of 2016 have changed the legal groundwork for penalties for DUI offenders. If you are found guilty of a DUI, you can expect your driving privileges to be affected in the following ways:
- If you are a first-time DUI offender, you are eligible to apply for a Monitoring Device Driving Permit during the first 30 days of your statutory summary suspension. Previously, you were required to serve at least 30 days of “hard time” suspension;
Understanding the Penalties of an Illinois Drug Possession Charge
Being arrested on drug charges can have a lasting impact on your life. Besides the cost of the charge itself, your job or livelihood could be placed at risk, and you may even lose government funding if you are attending or planning on going to college. Understand how the state of Illinois processes these charges, and what you can best do to protect yourself from the adverse consequences.
Drug Scheduling in Illinois
In Illinois, the penalties of a drug charge depend on several factors, including the assigned “schedule” of the drug you allegedly had in your possession. Based on the drug’s potential for abuse and whether or not they are considered approved for medical use, this schedule is as follows:
- Schedule I drugs: opiates and opium derivatives that have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use (heroin, LSD, ecstasy, etc.);
- Schedule II drugs: some accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and the propensity to cause severe psychological or physical dependence (Demerol, OxyContin, Percocet, etc.);
Cook County Study Suggests Judges Are Ignoring Bail Guidelines
When a person is arrested on suspicion of a crime, there is likely to be a significant amount of time between the arrest and eventual trial. During that period, the court has three options: the defendant can remain in jail until trial; the defendant can be released on his or her own recognizance after promising to appear when requested; or a bail amount can be set as a financial incentive for the defendant to be released and still appear at trial. Determining an appropriate bail amount can be complex, as one might expect, but the law in Illinois and in individual counties provides guidelines for doing so. A recently obtained study, however, suggests that judges in at least one local county have been playing by their own rules when setting bail for criminal defendants.
Serious Discrepancies
The Chicago Sun-Times¬ obtained a review conducted earlier this year by the Cook County sheriff’s office. The study looked at cases from 30 daily court sessions between February and March in Central Bond Court at the Leighton Criminal Courthouse at 26th and California. The review included more than 1,500 cases and showed that the bail decisions made by the judges in these cases deviated from the guidelines at a rate of approximate 85 percent. Even amidst the complicated variables and circumstantial considerations, the sheriff’s department described the bail decisions as “inconsistent.” The review also indicated that the amount and conditions of bail were largely dependent upon which judge presided on a particular day. County officials and judges dispute the sheriff’s department review, claiming that its numbers are not representative of the bigger picture. A court spokesman said that 1,500 cases were too small of a sample size to draw accurate conclusions. He went on to say that judges are following the prescribed guidelines, but that, in some cases, sound judgment appropriately overrides written recommendations and required risk assessments.
Pokémon Go Helping Criminals and Law Enforcement
Every so often, a new fad or cultural phenomenon will take the world by storm. Suddenly, everybody is interested in a particular person, music, movie, or other form of engagement. Right now, we are in the midst of one largest such events the gaming world has ever seen. Earlier this month, the augmented-reality game Pokémon Go was released, and, almost immediately, users were hitting the streets trying “catch ‘em all.” The record-breaking popularity of Pokémon Go—it recently doubled Facebook’s number of active daily users—has, as you might expect, created opportunities for criminals to prey on unsuspecting players, with assaults, robberies and other violent crimes having been reported. However, there have also been stories about the game providing assistance to law enforcement efforts.
Get Up and Go
The creators of Pokémon Go designed the game to reward players for physical activity. The app requires users to walk, jog, or bike around their communities, seeking out new creatures and collecting needed items. The gameplay interface uses a smartphone’s GPS signal to guide users through the streets of their town, while “catching” a Pokémon overlays an animated creature on the image captured by the device’s camera in real time.
Women Charged With Assault of Fast Food Employee
Three women have been arrested following an incident that took place outside of a McDonald’s restaurant in Sandusky, Ohio. All three women, who appear to be smiling and unconcerned in their booking photographs, were charged with assaulting a store employee, two were charged with child endangerment, and one faces an additional charge for theft.
According to news reports and the Sandusky police department Facebook page, the assault occurred in the parking lot of the restaurant. The women were allegedly frustrated by the speed of service offered by the employee, who they felt was working too slowly. Though complete details are not yet available, the children of two of the women participated in the attack, leading to the endangerment charges.
Assault and Battery in Illinois
While this particular incident occurred along Lake Erie in Northern Ohio, it can serve as a reminder of the seriousness of assault charges here in Illinois. Assault is an offense that frequently misunderstood, as it is often confused with the related offense of battery. The definition of assault, in fact, depends on that of battery, so the confusion may be justified.
Understanding Gun Laws to Combat Weapons Charges in Illinois
Chicago may be the epicenter of gun violence in Illinois, but it is not the only place in the state that experiences serious violent crimes as a result of illegal gun ownership. There were reportedly 1,117 deaths in the state of Illinois caused by guns in 2013. Just over half of all these were ruled homicides (52 percent). Just slightly below that came suicides, accounting for 44 percent of all gun deaths in the state in the same time period.
These staggeringly high numbers are just one reason that many advocate for stricter gun laws regarding the sale, possession, and ownership of a gun in Illinois. The logic goes that if the state was able to reduce the number of guns that are floating around, it would consequently be able to reduce the number of violent crimes perpetrated using such weapons.
A Hotly Contested Issue
Restricting gun ownership, however, has serious implications when considered in light of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees all citizens the right to bear arms. Advocates for gun control argue that certain types of guns serve no purpose other than to harm another human being. Critics may counter this argument with the acknowledgment that the Second Amendment makes no stipulation about what types of gun a person may possess. The most important way to deal with gun laws is to understand them. Only when a person has a full comprehension of what the state does and does not allow when it comes to owning and carrying a gun can he or she begin to make an argument against such laws—and to combat charges brought based on an alleged violation of them.
U.S. Supreme Court Says Sixth Amendment Does Not Guarantee Speedy Sentencing
As we have talked about recently on this blog, the right to a fair trial is one of the cornerstones of the American criminal justice system. Of course, amidst local and national concerns of false testimony by law enforcement and apparent flaws in forensic evidence processing, many wonder if a fair trial is an impossible ideal.
Be that as it may, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” This means that a defendant has the right not only to a fair, public trial, but also a speedy one. The United States Supreme Court, however, has ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial does not extend to the sentencing phase once a defendant has been convicted.
Betterman v. Montana
The case before the high court essentially began with a guilty plea by a man in Montana for skipping bail in 2012 and failing to appear on charges for domestic assault. The man then waited in prison for more than 14 months for his sentence to be determined, much of the wait blamed on institutional delays by the court. The man was ultimately sentenced to seven years in prison, with four of the years suspended. He appealed his sentence on the basis that the 14-month delay violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
Chicago Police Investigating Officers for False Testimony
When you are accused of any type of criminal activity, your right to a fair trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A fair trial presumes that everyone involved is invested in the equal application of the law, properly convicting the guilty, and acquitting those who are not guilty by legal standards. Of course, not every person will always tell the whole truth in court, even under oath. The concern becomes even more serious when the individual providing false, misleading, questionable testimony is an officer of the law. False testimony by police officers seems to be a fairly significant problem in Northern Illinois, as the Chicago Police Department has announced that six officers are now under investigation for false testimony regarding cases in which they were involved.
Investigative Reporting
The Chicago Tribune recently conducted an investigation which allegedly found more than a dozen examples of officers making false or questionable statements in court. This number does not include many more officers who may have created false reports but never testified in the courtroom. The involved cases ranged from large-scale investigations to small-time operations, and reportedly included testimony regarding a $50,000 brick of cocaine and a $30 bag of heroin. Some officers, according to the newspaper investigation, would even lie about the direction they were driving at a given time. Now, it appears, the Department is attempting to address the problem.
Study Suggests Tests for Marijuana Impairment Not Based in Science
Even as Illinois lawmakers consider a bill that would, for the first time, provide a marijuana intoxication standard for charges of driving under the influence (DUI), a new study claims that the foundation for such standards is seriously flawed. The study even went so far as to suggest that setting legal limits of THC in a driver’s blood has no scientific basis and that comparing the effects of alcohol and marijuana on a driver’s ability to operate a vehicle safely is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
BAC and THC Levels
Across the country, a driver found to have a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of .08 is considered to be under the influence, as decades of research have supported a relationship between BAC levels and impairment. With the increase in legalized use of marijuana, including recreational use in several states and medical use in about two dozen, including Illinois, lawmakers and law enforcement officials have been looking for a similar way to relate marijuana impairment to a quantifiable standard.
