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
Record Sealing and Expungement | Joliet Expungement Lawyer
Understanding the Difference Between Record Sealing and Expungement
Being convicted of a crime can severely limit one’s housing and employment opportunities. Sealing or expunging your record can often mitigate such issues. However, it is important to understand the difference between the two before filing a motion. An experienced expungement and record sealing lawyer can provide details on how you can improve the chances of a successful outcome in your criminal record sealing or expungement case.
Sealing vs. Expungement
At first glance, sealing of a criminal record and expungement might seem like the same thing, but the reality is much different. An expungement is akin to starting over with a clean slate. Any trace of your arrest or conviction is erased from government databases and no one can look up details about your case. It is almost as though it never even happened. Record sealing is somewhat similar but not the same. Information about your conviction remains in government databases, and select groups can still access your record, including the military, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. However, most will be unable to search for or find information on your criminal conviction other than any media information that may have been published.
The Dangers of Drag Racing | Will County Criminal Defense Attorney
The Dangers and Consequences of Drag Racing
Drag racing, sometimes also referred to as street racing, involves at least two vehicles competing in a speed race against one another. Drag racing can be a straight shot—meaning that the racers maintain a straight path—or it could be a race along a designated course that includes public streets, roadways, and highways. In most cases, the object of drag racing is for one driver to arrive at a destination first and in the shortest amount of time. However, sometimes the point of street racing is to test the physical limitations and stamina of drivers over the course of a long route or to prevent another, third-party vehicle from passing.
Street racing has been highly popularized over the last decade or so due to its appearance in a number of movies and high-profile celebrity deaths. However, drag racing and any other form of racing is illegal on the roads and highways of Illinois , and those caught participating in street racing activities may face sever criminal charges with long-lasting consequences.
Why Are Juveniles Held to a Different Standard of Accountability Under the Law?
For several decades now, the golden question regarding juvenile crimes has been why we try juveniles and adults differently for similar crimes. More specifically, many wonder why those as old as seventeen years of age (nearly adults) are still considered “youth” in a court of law, instead of adult offenders.
Experts have studied the psychological factors behind such an approach extensively over the years and have discovered a number of reasons why juveniles—including nearly adult seventeen-year-olds—are different from adults in the world of criminal law. Uncovering these findings has helped us to understand, then, why the U.S. Supreme Court treats juveniles differently, holding them to an entirely separate standard of accountability than adults.
Brain Development and its Effect on Teen Behavior
Anyone who is a parent to a teenager or is otherwise close to a teenager is familiar with how difficult adolescent behavior can be. Teens are often impulsive and argumentative, especially as they reach the later teen years. This is essentially the source behind the youth offender’s differential treatment in the law system. A teen’s brain differs significantly from an adult's brain due to development, causing teens to make all kinds of irrational, impulsive, and, at times, downright destructive choices. Quite simply, the difference in brain development affects a teen’s behavior, which distinctly separates them from adults under criminal law.
Factors That Place Youth at Risk for Juvenile Delinquency
The causes for youth crime are just as diverse as the reasons behind adult crime with some leading to nothing more than a one-time offense, while others result in repetitive, problematic behaviors that continue for much of the offender’s lifetime. Delinquent acts, as they are referred to in the juvenile justice system, can be triggered by mere peer pressure or can stem from a more serious, deep-rooted emotional problem. Whatever the cause for juvenile delinquency, any act committed by a young person that may be considered criminal should not be taken lightly.
Criminal Motivation
A number of things can motivate a youth offender to commit a delinquent act, but studies show that there are certain factors that contribute to a teen’s tendency to display criminal behavior. When it comes to youth violence, for example, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that the following factors make it more likely that a young person will commit violent acts and continue to commit the same acts over time:
The Burden of Proof in a Criminal Case
When an individual has been charged with a crime, he or she is presumed to be innocent until he or she is proven guilty in a court of law. In a criminal case, the burden of proof is the highest in any area of the law, and justifiably so. Other areas of law deal primarily with concerns related to money and property, but a criminal defendant often faces serious punitive consequences, including, in some states, the death penalty. While capital punishment is no longer used in Illinois, a criminal conviction can still change a person’s life forever. The standard of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt looks to ensure that only the truly guilty are convicted and subsequently punished.
The Government’s Role
News stories and television programs often make reference to the idea that the victim of a crime can press charges against the alleged perpetrator. This, however, is only partially true. It is possible for a victim to file a police report and to cooperate in the prosecution of an alleged offender, but it is up to the government to decide whether or not to actually pursue a conviction. Depending on the nature of the offense, the prosecution may be handled by a United States Attorney in federal court or by the State’s Attorney’s office in the appropriate Illinois county.
DUI Charges and Delayed Intoxication
If you are not normally a drinker and recently went out with friends, you may have found yourself in an unfortunate circumstance—a delayed sense of intoxication that ultimately resulted in a DUI charge. What is this phenomenon, though, and why is it important?
What is Delayed Intoxication?
Delayed intoxication is exactly what the phrase implies: an individual who has consumed alcohol does not immediately feel the effects of the alcohol but later realizes they are more intoxicated than they initially though. Delayed intoxication could happen if your tolerance for alcohol has changed because of age or weight loss or due to other factors, such as how much food you ate before you started drinking. If you at home, a friend’s house, or an establishment when the alcohol catches up with you, it is unlikely to matter all that much. On the other hand, if you start to feel the effects while you are behind the wheel, you could be in for some trouble.
Reasonable Suspicion and DUI Charges
Consider any traffic stop in which you have ever been involved. Even in a simple stop for something such as a broken tail light, this formality is a form of a seizure, which is addressed the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. When a stop is performed without just and reasonable suspicion, any charges that follow may be deemed unconstitutional and be dismissed, even in cases involving DUI. However, obtaining this outcome often depends on favorable circumstances coupled with a knowledgeable attorney who has the ability to use them to your advantage.
The Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unlawful searches and seizures—including arrests—and requires a court-issued warrant even in cases with probable cause. However, a loophole exists in which if the officer believes the driver or general public are in danger, a warrantless stop is permissible. Reasonably suspicious activities are not clear-cut or defined for law enforcement officers, offering ambiguity that allows an officer to use his or her judgment given the present circumstances. If the stop is improper, the stop itself and any resulting evidence are challengeable. Possible concerns include:
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Illinois Concealed Carry Appeal
The state of Illinois has long been known for its strict laws regarding the ownership of firearms and other issues related to weapons. In fact, Illinois was the last state in the nation to even create a process for issuing concealed carry permits, doing so in 2012 only after a federal appeals court found that the state’s prohibition of concealed carry permits violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The issue has been back in the news in recent months as several Illinois gun owners have claimed the current process for obtaining a concealed carry permit violates their rights to due process.
Federal Appeals Court Rules Upholds Current System
Last spring, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments regarding lawsuits filed by gun owners who believed the state’s laws regarding concealed carry permits violated their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs claimed that they met all of the qualifications to be issued a concealed carry permit under Illinois law, but their permits were not issued due to objections that had been lodged with one or more law enforcement agencies. When the applicants sought additional information, they were denied. They each filed lawsuits citing a deficiency in due process.
Illinois Criminal Law Reform Aims to Reduce Recidivism Rates
Earlier this year, Governor Bruce Rauner announced a lofty goal: he wants to reduce the state’s prison population by 25 percent by the year 2025. Several initiatives and criminal law reform laws have been put into place since that announcement, and all are aimed at achieving that goal. Is it really working, though, or do they at least have the potential of doing so? The following explores the recent reforms, and their potential efficacy. It also provides some important information for anyone currently facing criminal charges in the state of Illinois.
Diversion Programs and Nonviolent Crimes
Over the last several decades, the “War on Drugs” created a major surge in the number of people arrested for nonviolent crimes, and it continues to result in countless arrests. Worse yet is that many wind up being arrested, charged, and convicted of subsequent crimes. This is often because the true nature of their issue is never really addressed (i.e. addiction, etc.).
DUI Checkpoints: Are They Constitutional?
As we begin the winter holiday season, you will probably start to see reports of DUI checkpoints being set up throughout the Chicago region. Beginning with the night before Thanksgiving and continuing through New Year’s Day, these checkpoints are designed to be a deterrent for drunk drivers and to get those who are intoxicated off the roads. Many people, however, come to me with questions about the legality of DUI checkpoints and whether they violate the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Important Questions
More than a quarter century ago, the issue was taken before the highest court in the country. The case began with a challenge by residents in Saginaw County, Michigan, who believed that being required to stop at a DUI checkpoint was a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. The plaintiffs claimed that being detained, even for a couple minutes, constituted a seizure of their personal property—their vehicles—which could eventually become an arrest on DUI charges.
