Posted on June 17, 2015 in Criminal Defense

The debate over drug detection dogs or drug-sniffing dogs has taken on life in recent months and years on several different fronts. There have been many concerns raised over the training methods used with such animals and the reliability of results that they produce. While the accuracy of drug-sniffing dogs is certainly a reasonable issue to discuss, more and more questions are being asked regarding the legality and constitutionality of using the dogs. Citizens are often left wondering if the employment of drug-sniffing dogs in certain situations constitutes a violation of Fourth Amendment Rights.

Florida v. Jardines

According to the United State Supreme Court, citizens may be justified in such concerns, and, in fact, ruled that a private home is protected from searches and investigations from police, including drug-sniffing dogs, without a warrant. The 2013 ruling on Florida v. Jardines, addressed a situation that occurred back in 2006, when police brought a drug-sniffing dog to a Miami man’s front porch, where the dog alerted law enforcement that he detected illegal drugs. Using the dog’s alert as probable cause, police obtained a warrant, searched the home, and found evidence of marijuana trafficking.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 10, 2015 in Criminal Defense

In the wake of protests and civil unrest following police-related deaths in Ferguson, Missouri, and New York City, another high profile shooting death exploded into the public consciousness. Thanks largely to a bystander’s cell phone video, the police shooting of an African American man in North Charleston, South Carolina, captured headlines for several weeks beginning in early April. While the involved officer was fired and authorities promised an investigation, the future of the case was relatively uncertain until earlier this week when a grand jury officially indicted the former officer on a murder charge.

The indictment is related to a series of events on April 4^th that left a 50 year old man dead following what seemed to be a relatively routine traffic stop. The officer’s dashboard camera indicated that initial stop for broken taillight was conducted without incident. A few minutes later, however, the driver emerged from his vehicle and attempted to get away. A cell phone video shot by a passerby showed the officer and driver involved in a physical altercation, after which the driver broke free again and ran. The officer fired eight times at the driver, ultimately killing him.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 08, 2015 in Miranda Rights

Over and over again on television dramas, the case is resolved with the arrest of a suspect while the arresting officer recites the familiar words, “You have the right to remain silent.” Most people are familiar with the idea of Miranda Rights, but many do not clearly understand what they represent or how they came to be such an important part of the legal process.

Why are They Called “Miranda” Rights?

The warnings that so many associate with the arrest of a suspect take their name from a Supreme Court decision dating back to 1966. In that case, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping, robbery, and rape. During interrogation, Miranda eventually confessed to the crimes and was convicted. He appealed on the grounds that his confession was not voluntary and that no attorney was present during questioning. The United States Supreme Court ultimately agreed and overturned Miranda’s initial conviction. Miranda would later be retried without the confession being permitted as evidence and was convicted again.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 03, 2015 in Juvenile Crime

With a new policy in place aimed at improving the rehabilitative success of its juvenile system, Illinois has become the 20^th state in the country to end the practice of solitary confinement for inmates of juvenile facilities. The policy was the result of a settlement in lawsuit filed against the state by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which sought to improve the conditions and practices regarding juvenile inmates.

The original lawsuit, R.J. v. Jones, was a class-action suit filed in 2012 by the ACLU on behalf of five juvenile inmates against the Director of the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ). The suit claimed that the IDJJ failed to provide appropriate mental health and educational services to those incarcerated in juvenile facilities. It also maintained that inmates were subjected to solitary confinement and violent conditions within the facilities.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 01, 2015 in Criminal Defense

Virtually everyone who uses social media is familiar with the idea of a “Facebook rant.” Many have probably even posted their own from time to time. While most such rants are generally written off as an individual venting or blowing off steam, they can sometimes be interpreted much more seriously. This was exactly the situation for a Pennsylvania man five years ago who was convicted on four counts of transmitting threats via the internet. The United States Supreme Court, however, recently ruled that the intent of the person making such threats must be considered when prosecuting such charges.

The case Elonis vs. United States has its origin in a domestic dispute from several years ago. After his wife left him, taking his children with her, an Allentown, PA, man named Anthony Elonis took to Facebook. His posts were violently explicit, often imitating the styles of rappers and hip-hop artists. Some posts even made specific mention of his First Amendment rights to free speech. While he maintained that his posts were a therapeutic form of art, he was convicted of transmitting threats on the grounds that a reasonable person would take his words and thoughts seriously.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 29, 2015 in Uncategorized

Being arrested and charged with driving under the influence (DUI) in Illinois can be embarrassing and frustrating, but you do have rights during this process. Sometimes, unfortunately, law enforcement officers may take advantage of your confusion or shock and are not upfront about making your rights clear to you. This is why you need an attorney as soon as possible after DUI charge to discuss your case with an experienced professional.

You do have the right to refuse testing of your urine, blood or breath in Illinois. It is extremely important to know, however, that opting for this may result in immediate consequences. By operating a motor vehicle within the state, the law in Illinois assumes that you have granted your implied consent to comply with requested chemical testing. If you decide not to participate with the test, you may face a suspension of driving privileges for one year for your first refusal, with relief programs available after 30 days. A second refusal will result in a three-year suspension of driving privileges with no eligibility for driving relief programs.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 26, 2015 in Criminal Defense

While the approved medical use of marijuana has been technically legal in the state of Illinois for almost a year and half, other legislation has made its way through Springfield that would decriminalize low-level possession for all residents. Last week, the Illinois Senate approved a measure that would make possessing small amounts of marijuana punishable as a civil offense, similar to a traffic ticket, rather than a criminal violation.

After getting through the state House last month, the bill was approved in the Senate by a vote of 37-19. It is not, however, ready for Governor Bruce Rauner’s signature yet, as sponsors indicate approval of some final cleanup language is needed first. If ultimately approved, Illinois would become the 18^th state to officially decriminalize low-level marijuana possession.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 21, 2015 in Criminal Defense

With high-profile criminal prosecutions regularly capturing national attention and the intense dramatization of courtroom proceedings on television shows and movies, many may be led to believe that every criminal charge will play out in an oak-paneled room, in front of a duly-appointed judge and jury. The reality is, however, that less than ten percent of criminal cases ever reach trial, and in federal cases, only around three percent will ever be tried. Instead, the vast of majority of criminal proceedings are resolved by means of a plea bargain.

What is a Plea Bargain?

A plea bargain, in effect, is a negotiation between prosecutors and a defendant, which seeks to reach a resolution to the case without requiring a trial. During the process, a defendant generally will agree to plea guilty to the specified charge or a lesser charge in exchange for a lighter sentence and/or cooperation with the prosecution of related cases. The Illinois Supreme Court mandates that any plea bargain must be voluntary on the part of a defendant who clearly understands the charges and associated penalties.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 19, 2015 in BAIID

Did you know that if you are charged with driving under the influence (DUI), your driving privileges will be suspended, regardless of the outcome of the case? For a first-time offender, your license is automatically suspended for six months if you fail a blood-alcohol content (BAC) test, and 12 months if you refuse such a test. In addition, the Illinois Office of the Secretary of State can revoke your license until the conclusion of your case and beyond, depending on the final disposition. During your suspension, however, there may be measures of relief available to you that allow you to continue legally driving to work or school, and to provide for your family.

The most commonly used avenue of relief in Illinois is the Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (BAIID) Program. To qualify for the BAIID program, an offender is required to file an application with the Office of the Secretary of State to obtain a Monitoring Device Driving Permit, or MDDP. This permit allows a first-time DUI offender the opportunity to retain driving privileges during the statutory suspension of his or her license. Participation in the program is not mandatory, but declining the MDDP completely prohibits an offender from driving for the duration of his or her suspension.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 14, 2015 in Criminal Defense

The laws regarding search and seizure of evidence can often be very confusing. It can be difficult for the average citizen to remember if law enforcement must obtain a warrant before searching a particular piece of property, such as a home, vehicle, or even a purse or wallet. Unfortunately, there are law enforcement officers who take advantage of the average person’s uncertainty regarding their rights by heavily implying or even stating outright that a requested search is not only legal, but that his or her compliance is mandatory. A decision by the United States Supreme Court last summer, however, established a definitive line regarding the search of cell phones incident to an arrest, specifically requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before conducting a search.

Two High Profile Cases

The issue before the high court was based in part on a case called Riley v. California, in which a young man had appealed an enhanced sentence based on information found on his cell phone. His vehicle had initially been impounded for traffic violations and a legal search of the vehicle found illegal weapons, leading to the man’s arrest. A subsequent search of his phone connected him to criminal gang activity, and as a result, additional charges were added and his sentence increased.

Continue Reading ››