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
Refusing a Breathalyzer Test
You are driving home from a night out with some friends. You have had a few drinks but you feel fine to drive. Halfway home, you see you the blue lights behind you. Immediately, you pull over and start get out your license and registration. The officer comes to your window, asks if you have been drinking, and then asks you to submit to a breathalyzer test. While it may be very tempting to refuse, it is extremely important to understand seriousness of such a decision.
By operating a motor vehicle in the state of Illinois, you are presumed to have granted your implied consent to submit to blood alcohol content (BAC) chemical testing. As such, the office of the secretary of state may impose administrative penalties on drivers fail or refuse testing. While refusing a test is not technically a criminal offense, the administrative penalties can still have a tremendous impact on your life.
If you refuse a BAC chemical test, your driving privileges will be automatically suspended for one year. Depending on the circumstances of your case, you may be eligible for driving relief after 30 days. A second or subsequent refusal during a future DUI stop will result in a statutory summary suspension of your driving privileges for 3 years with no relief available. While a simple license suspension may seem like a preferable alternative to a DUI conviction, it is important to remember that the DUI case against you can proceed without test results. The officer may present his or her observations, along with other proof of your impairment. In fact, your refusal to submit to testing may be presented as a suggestion that you knew you were too drunk to drive.
New Law Prevents Domestic Violence Calls from Leading to Eviction
In the last several years, neighborhoods and towns around Illinois and throughout the country have been enacted laws intended to reduce crime. Some of them, however, have had serious unintended consequences, particularly for victims of domestic violence. Presumably designed to make cities safer, these laws, known as “crime-free” or “nuisance property” ordinances impose fines and penalties, up to including eviction, on landlords and tenants who attract a certain level of police or law enforcement attention. Last month, though, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed a measure that prevents local authorities from punishing tenants who require police assistance for sexual or domestic violence situations.
Noble Aims and Unintended Consequences
The Chicago Tribune reports that more than 100 cities and towns in Illinois have some form of a nuisance ordinance currently in effect. Nearly 40 of them directly punish tenants and landlords for too many calls to the police, regardless of the activity in question. To be fair, many municipalities have never applied the ordinances to domestic violence calls, or at least they claim they have not. Oak Forest Police Chief Gregory Anderson insists that his department does not punish those who truly need help, but that the ordinance has been a tremendous help in reducing drug-related crime. Other towns, however, seem to have a bigger problem. In many cases, domestic violence victims were left with a serious dilemma: call the police, get help, and risk being evicted; or remain silent and continue being victimized. The fear of losing their homes was, in fact, causing the opposite effect than that intended by the ordinance. Instead of reducing crime, the laws were leading to the underreporting of sexual and domestic violence.
Too Good to Be True Online Deals May Be Stolen Property
Have you have ever scrolled through eBay, or a similar auction site, looking for bargains? With nearly 160 million active user accounts on eBay alone, chances are pretty good that you or someone in your family checks out available deals at least occasionally. Online commerce has created an entirely new opportunity for bargain-hunters, but authorities have issued warning that a large number of auction site deals may, in fact, involve stolen property.
A report issued by the National Retail Federation estimates that as many as one-third of auction and classified site listings for items claiming to be “new in box” or “new with tags” are merchandise that has been stolen from retail stores or warehouses. Such schemes often involve organized retail theft rings, such as the multi-million dollar operation run by four Chicago residents arrested in 2013 for a nationwide string of shoplifting. While the main item of choice for that particular group was computer hard drives, theft rings may focus on stealing clothing, purses, jewelry, or any other items that can be quickly converted to cash through an intermediary known as a “fence.”
Governor Refuses to Add PTSD to Medical Marijuana Conditions List
Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner continued to demonstrate his unwillingness to amend the state’s medical marijuana pilot program until it finally gets off the ground by illegal drug possession " vetoing a proposal that would have added several ailments to the list of qualifying conditions. The proposed measure would have added, among others, post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, allowing those suffering from the condition to seek medical marijuana treatment legally. The governor’s decision is not sitting well with many across the state, including a number of veterans groups who believe that Illinois needs to keep up with other states, especially when it comes to offering aid to those who have sacrificed and served.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Once known as shell shock and battle fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder is a serious psychiatric condition that can affect an individual who has experienced or witnessed a particularly troubling or terrifying event. The event typically involves the infliction or threat of serious harm or violence, and may include wartime combat, a violent crime, auto accident, sexual assault, or natural disaster. PTSD can cause intense feelings of fear, helplessness, anger, nervousness, anxiety, depression, and other physiological and psychological symptoms. While there is no cure for PTSD, its symptoms are often treated with antidepressants or blood pressure medications. Medicinal treatments are commonly provided in conjunction with psychotherapy to help the affected person develop coping skills and to work through fears. However, according to many military veterans and a growing number of more progressive mental health professionals , marijuana may provide a measure of help and relief to those who suffer from PTSD.
Defending Drug Possession Charges
If you have been arrested on charges of illegal drug possession , you may feel like your options are very limited. It may seem nearly impossible to consider anything other than your life and your future crashing down around you. While you should certainly take any criminal charges seriously, including those for drug possession, a dedicated lawyer can help you realize that a successful defense is possible and that the case is probably not as clear-cut as it may appear.
Burden of Proof
As with any criminal matter, proving your guilt is entirely up to the prosecution. In order to convict you of drug possession, prosecutors must show beyond reasonable doubt that:
- You knew the substance in question was an illicit drug or controlled substance; and
- You knew the substance was in your possession or within property under your control.
The second point also includes what the law refers to as “constructive possession,” which can be used in several scenarios. Constructive possession is defined as the legal possession of something without being in a person’s direct physical control. For example, if you and your roommate each have a key to a locked cabinet in your home and illegal drugs are found in that cabinet, you both could be charged with possession. Similarly, prosecutors may attempt to prove that drugs in the trunk of your car were under your constructive possession since the vehicle belongs to you.
Sign and Drive: Get a Ticket, Keep Your License
You are probably aware that if you receive too many traffic citations , your driving privileges can be suspended. It is likely of little surprise, as state authorities have a vested interest in keeping the roads of Illinois as safe as possible. Prior to 2015, however, you could also have your driver’s license confiscated as bail by a police officer after a single traffic violation. While, in theory, the practice was meant to ensure a driver’s compliance in responding to the citation, in reality, doing so created an unreasonable amount of inconvenience. In late 2014, legislation was passed by state lawmakers to end the confiscation of driver’s licenses for traffic offenses, instead relying on the assurance of the driver to respond appropriately to the ticket and securing the promise with a signature.
Change Needed
For years, traffic laws in Illinois permitted an officer issuing a citation to take the driver’s license of the alleged offending driver as a form of bail or security. Upon responding to the citation by paying the fine, appearing in court, or replacing the license with cash bail, the license would ultimately be returned to the driver. The individual’s driving privileges were not affected in any way; if needed, a driver could present a copy of the citation in lieu of a license. While a copy of the ticket may have served the purposes of law enforcement well enough, leaving a person without a valid form of photo identification made life unnecessarily difficult. In today’s world, a driver’s license is used as identification for countless applications, including cashing a check, boarding an airplane, or purchasing alcohol.
Concealed Carry Law: Illinois’ Shall Issue Requirement
The state of Illinois has long been known for its strict policies on gun ownership, particularly in regard to handguns. In fact, Illinois was the last state in the country to enact a law permitting the possession of concealed weapons. The law, however, represented the state’s legislative reaction to a 2012 federal appeals court ruling that a complete ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional and violated the second amendment rights of citizens. The court provided a 180-day window within which the state legislature could craft an acceptable measure that balanced public safety interests with citizens’ rights.
Requirements for a Concealed Carry Permit
Passed in 2013, and going into effect in 2014, the Firearm Concealed Carry Act provides guidelines for permit eligibility. To be eligible, an individual must:
Governor Amends Lawmakers’ Proposal on Marijuana DUI Limits
A few weeks ago, a post on this blog discussed a bill that would have created the created the state’s first quantitative standard for driving under the influence of marijuana. The measure had been approved passed with bipartisan support by the Illinois House and Senate and was sent to the desk of Governor Bruce Rauner for his signature. The governor, however, found the proposed limits to be too permissive and returned the bill to the legislature with a proposal of his own, exercising his amendatory veto power.
Zero-Tolerance and Initial Proposal
Under the existing laws in Illinois, a driver could face charges for DUI if any trace of marijuana is found in his or her system. This presents several problems, proponents for change contend. First, efforts are underway around the country and in Illinois to decriminalize marijuana possession, with some starts having already legalized recreational use. Thus, a zero-tolerance policy for presence of a substance, the use of which may or may not have been illegal, does not seem to make sense when impairment is not a factor. The other main concern is that it takes a significant amount of time for all traces of marijuana to be fully metabolized or expelled from the body. In fact, some remnants can remain in a person’s system for several weeks, long after its impairment effects have worn off. Critics of the current law maintain that a DUI arrest today based marijuana use last week—which may have been legal if the driver visited another state—is simply unjust.
Evidence Gathered in Warrantless Cell Phone Searches is Inadmissible
When an individual is arrested, whether it is on charges of DUI , weapons offenses, or possession of drugs, the arresting officer will normally conduct a pat-down search of the arrestee. This is done in an effort to prevent the officer from being injured by any object on the individual’s person that may pose an immediate threat. The search is also conducted to prevent the destruction of immediately available additional evidence, such as drugs or drug paraphernalia. However, up to 90 percent of American adults routinely carry a cell phone or other mobile device that may be seized by police subsequent to an arrest. Thanks to a ruling by the United States Supreme Court, though, the police must obtain a warrant before looking through an arrestee’s cell phone for additional information.
The decision came as the result of two separate cases from opposite sides of the country. In the first, a California man was convicted for additional crimes when a warrantless search of his cell phone led to incriminating evidence that was used against him at trial. In the other, a man in Massachusetts was arrested for selling drugs and law enforcement officials searched his phone. Using information on the phone, they were able to identify the man’s apartment, a warranted search of which found additional drugs and illegal weapons. Together, the two cases reached the nation’s high court, which, in a unanimous decision, solidified the concept of digital privacy by prohibiting warrantless searches of cell phones.
Challenging the Results of Field Sobriety Tests
If you were asked to stand on one leg for thirty seconds, right now with no warning, could you do it? What about walking in a straight line, heel to toe, reversing direction and walking back on the exact same line, whether you could see the line or not? If either of these presented a significant challenge for you, federal authorities suggest that there is about an 80 percent chance that you might be intoxicated. Of course, this exercise is meant to be an exaggerated example, but the reality is that tests such as the ones mentioned are used by law enforcement every day as subjective evidence against drivers charged with DUI , knowing full well the tests are not always accurate.
Battery of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration recognizes three roadside behavior assessments as “Standardized Field Sobriety Tests” or SFSTs. The tests include the two previously discussed and a third, the horizontal gaze nystagmus, in which the administering officer asks a driver to follow a small object, such as a pen, with his or her eyes, looking for involuntary jerking of the eyes (called nystagmus) and other indicators. Generally administered together, these tests are accepted around the country as admissible—although rebuttable—proof of a driver’s intoxication.
