TELEPHONES ANSWERED 24 HOURS A DAY
FREE CONSULTATION
312-629-0669
Recent Blog Posts
Fugitive Ponzi Schemers Receive Harsher Prison Sentences
The worst thing you can do when facing federal criminal charges is to run. The law will eventually catch up with you—and punish you more severely. Nelson and Janet Hallahan learned that lesson all too well.The “Mini-Madoffs”
The Hallahans lived in Peoria, Illinois, and were known for their wealthy lifestyle. It turned out that lifestyle was financed through fraud. They ran a Ponzi scheme for nearly six years during the mid-1990s, using new investors to finance phantom returns paid to existing clients. A 2012 Huffington Post article referred to the Hallahans as “mini-Madoffs” for their scheme.
Like most Ponzi schemers though, the Hallahans were eventually caught. In 2000, the couple pleaded guilty on charges of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and money laundering. In exchange for their confessions, federal prosecutors dismissed more than a dozen additional charges and recommended a relatively lenient sentence.
Illinois Judge Ordered to Explain Child Pornography Sentence
The possession and distribution of child pornography is a serious federal criminal offense. The emotionally charged nature of these cases often prompts harsh sentencing from federal courts. All defendants, even those charged with possession of child pornography, are entitled to due process under law. Recently the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ordered a trial judge to re-sentence a defendant in a child pornography case. The appeals court found that the judge failed to follow the law in imposing his initial sentence.United States v. Poulin
Matthew Poulin moved to Illinois in 2011 with his minor son. Poulin resided in the basement of his mother's house in Moline. About a month after moving in with his mother, law enforcement used file-sharing software to access Poulin's computer. Poulin used the software to distribute child pornography. Police then executed a search warrant and discovered child pornography on Poulin's computer and attached hard drives.
Supreme Court Expands Scope of “Domestic Violence” Charges That Affect the Right to Own a Gun
It is a violation of federal law for a person to possess firearms if he or she “has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” As Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently observed, “This country witnesses more than a million acts of domestic violence, and hundreds of deaths from domestic violence, each year.” In a March 26 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, she said that any “offensive touching” constituted “domestic violence” for purposes of federal firearms laws.United States v. Castleman
This particular case began with the 2008 arrest of James Castleman in Tennessee. In the year 2001, Castleman pleaded guilty to causing “bodily injury” to his mother’s child. Seven years later, federal authorities discovered that Castleman had been selling firearms. He was charged, among other things, with illegally possessing firearms following a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.
Castleman argued the Tennessee conviction should not count against him because the “bodily injury” did not involve the use of “physical force.” The trial court agreed and dismissed the charges. A divided federal appeals court upheld the trial judge's decision. The majority said the law required evidence of “violent force,” whereas Tennessee’s law might permit a conviction for “a slight, nonserious physical injury with conduct that cannot be described as violent.”
Craigslist Ad Leads to 11-Year Prison Sentence
Because of its global nature, the Internet can turn a local crime into a federal offense. This is especially true when it comes to sex crimes involving minors. A defendant faces a minimum of 10 years in prison if he or she uses “the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce”-- including the Internet—to solicit sex from a minor. One defendant recently attempted to test the scope of this law and failed.Using an Adult to Get to the Child
Harry McMillan was a law school student in Carbondale. One day in 2010, he posted an ad on the popular classified website Craigslist. In the ad, he invited parents to “sell me your teenage daughter.” This caught the attention of undercover detective Mike Andrews. Andrews, now a local police chief, was part of an Internet Crimes Task Force that included the Illinois Attorney General's office and the United States Secret Service.
Andrews posed as a willing father and answered McMillan's ad. Andrews promised McMillan access to his (non-existent) teenage daughter. They arranged a meeting at a movie theater. Andrews appeared with an adult female posing as the daughter. Andrews then spoke with McMillan, who requested nude pictures of the “daughter.” Andrews handed McMillan an envelope, and the minute he opened it, McMillan was arrested.
Can Police Use GPS to Track My Vehicle Without a Warrant?
GPTechnology makes police surveillance much easier and, consequently, personal privacy much more difficult to retain. Courts struggle to define the scope of personal privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Even the United States Supreme Court is divided on the issue, leaving lower federal courts to struggle with the implications of increased police monitoring.United States v. Jones
In the 2012 case United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court held that police must obtain a warrant when attaching a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device to a vehicle. Federal and state police agencies commonly use such devices to monitor criminal suspects. All nine justices of the Court agreed this constituted a “search or seizure” requiring a warrant under the Fourth Amendment.
But the justices disagreed on their reasoning. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the Court's principal opinion, said it was a question of property rights. Since the FBI had to physically attach a GPS device to a suspect's car, that constituted a form of trespass, which under a historical reading of the Fourth Amendment required a warrant. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel Alito wrote separately to emphasize their broader concerns over privacy. Justice Alito's opinion, which was joined by three other justices, said the “trespass” issue was “relatively minor” and the real problem was the government's “use of a GPS for the purpose of long-term tracking.” Such surveillance should require a warrant, Justice Alito said, even if there was no physical trespass like attaching a GPS device.
Chicago Anti-Gang Efforts Make City Streets Safer
The city of Chicago set the record for homicides in 2012 with over 500, and 2013 ended at 415-the lowest total in almost 50 years. However, Chicago homicide rates are still much higher than those of any other city in the U.S. Chicago officials have made it clear that they believe this decline is the result of altering police tactics, as well as the increase of after-school jobs and mentoring for young people.
The new approach to combating gang violence began with a “gang audit”-a collection of information about specific gangs and their members, which allowed officers to begin to focus on specific gangs and members, as well as quickly locate and arrive at areas where gangs were likely to attack each other.
Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy told The Associated Press, “We identified gang turfs, membership, who’s in conflict with who, put it into a database and put that into the hands of beat officers.”
Chicago’s police department has also taken to providing known gang members with information about social services, sometimes having them meet the parents of murder victims so that they may see the consequences of their actions.
Understanding Computer Fraud in Illinois
In an age where almost everything can be done via computer, computer fraud is treated as a very serious criminal offense in Illinois and across the country. Computer fraud can be committed in a number of ways and carries various penalties based on the severity of the crime. According to Illinois computer crime law, there are three ways to commit computer fraud, each carrying its own penalty:-
Accessing a computer, program, or data intending to devise or execute a scheme or artifice to defraud, or in order to deceive is considered to be a Class 4 felony;
-
Obtaining the use of, damaging, or destroying a computer (or any part of the computer), or altering, deleting, or removing any program or data as part of a deception, or in connection with a scheme to defraud is a Class 3 felony offense;
-
Accessing or giving means of access to a computer (or any of its parts), or programs or data, and obtaining or gaining control of property, money or services in a scheme or artifice to defraud or as part of a deception. This is a Class 4 felony if the money property, or services are worth $1,000 or less, a Class 3 felony is the money, property, or services are worth more than $1,000 but less than $50,000, or a Class 2 felony if the value of the money, property, or services is worth $50,000 or more.
Distracted Driving Penalties Increase
A number of new criminal and traffic laws in Illinois took effect on January 1, including several that relate to distracted driving. The use of a handheld device while driving was banned statewide, and the penalties for distracted driving have been increased.
According to ABC News, under the new law, drivers may dial a cell phone or other handheld device only while the vehicle is stopped, and only if the vehicle is placed in neutral or park. This includes using the device while stopped at a red light. The law also prohibits motorists from having a video device application that is visible to the driver running on their phone while they are driving.
Drivers who cause accidents which result in injuries and who are found to be using a cell phone while driving can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor. This can carry penalties of up to $2,500 and may include jail time. Those drivers whose cell phone habits cause involvement in a fatal accident could be charged with a Class 4 felony, which may carry a fine of up to $25,000 and a sentence of up to three years in jail.
What Is the Difference Between First and Second Degree Murder?
You’re sitting at home watching the news, and you see a story covering an individual who has been convicted of first degree murder. Later, while watching Law & Order, you see another individual charged with second degree murder. What’s the difference? Although the two legal terms seem remarkably similar, the differences between first and second degree murder are critical in the legal world.
Let’s start with the more serious of the two offenses: first degree murder. Typically, first degree murders are planned and committed in a cruel way against one or more persons, under special circumstances. These circumstances may be accompanied by other offenses, such as kidnapping, hijacking, robbery, assault, or torture. If these types of crimes have been committed before, the charge will be much more serious.
To prove that a defendant committed first-degree murder, the prosecutor must show “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the individual killed another person without lawful justification, and either:
Obtaining an Order of Protection
As uncomfortable as the subject is, domestic violence is a very common crime in our society today. According to Illinois State Police, a woman is beaten in the United States every 15 seconds and domestic violence results in more injuries that require medical attention than rape, accidents, and muggings combined. Abuse can include physical abuse, harassment, making a child or another person watch abuse, forcing an individual to something they don’t want to, or denying a disabled person access to needed to care. These acts are considered domestic when committed by a family or household member, who can be any of the following:
- Spouses and former spouses;
- Parents, children, and stepchildren;
- Persons who formerly shared the same home;
- Persons who dated or were engaged.
There are in fact ways to end the cycle of domestic violence. The biggest and most effective way to do this is to obtain an Order of Protection. An Order of Protection is a legal order from a judge that is used to protect victims of domestic abuse. These Orders contain “remedies” that order an abuser to take certain actions or prohibit them from taking certain actions. The abuser, or respondent, may be arrested for violating remedies listed in the Order of Protection.
120 N LaSalle St, Suite 2600,
Chicago, IL 60602
TELEPHONES ANSWERED
24 HOURS A DAY
312-629-0669
Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney120 N LaSalle St, Suite 2600,
Chicago, IL 60602312-629-0669
Contact Our Firm
The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
I have read and understand the Disclaimer and Privacy Policy.
