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
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.
Reasonable Doubt: You Do Not Have to Prove Your Innocence
When you are facing criminal charges for something you did not do, including drug charges , property crimes , or any other type of illegal activity, it can be very overwhelming. You will likely feel enormous pressure to find some way to prove that you did not or could not commit the offense for which you have been charged. The challenge, of course, often lies in the fact that proving you did not do something can be extremely difficult. However, thanks to a long history of legal precedent that has become entrenched in U.S. laws, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and its case must exceed all reasonable doubt.
Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Dating back centuries, a defendant is presumed to be innocent until he or she is proven guilty. However, for many years in the United States, courts were at odds over what was necessary to reach the standard of “proven guilty.” Some cases would utilize the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which is still in use in civil court, which simply means that the defendant more likely than not committed the act of which he or she was accused.
New Law to Reduce Automatic Transfers for Juveniles
Beginning January 1, 2016, fewer drunk driving juveniles will be automatically tried as adults in Illinois, thanks to a new law signed by Governor Bruce Rauner earlier this month. Proponents believe that the new measure is in line with similar systems in place in other states, and will help Illinois reduce the current law’s “disproportionate impact” on minority juveniles. While juveniles will still be permitted to be tried as adults, a large majority of cases will first require a hearing in juvenile court to determine the appropriateness of a transfer.
Need for Change
More than a century ago, Illinois was a pioneer in the fight against juvenile crime, establishing the nation’s first juvenile court system in Cook County in 1899. In recent decades, however, the “tough-on-crime” attitudes that had become prevalent across the county also took hold here at home. Prosecution became more intense and criminal penalties more severe, even for cases involving minors. Laws were created that allowed individuals as young as 15, and in some cases, even 13, to be automatically tried as adults for certain offenses. The focus on juvenile rehabilitation rather than punishment that led to the establishment of the juvenile court system seemed to have been blurred.
Happy Hour Legal Again in Illinois
With the stroke of a pen, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner completed the state legislature’s effort to repeal a 26-year-old ban on happy hours. After moving through the State House and Senate fairly quickly this spring, the measure has been in the hands of the governor since the end of May. Governor Rauner’s approval of the bill last week was met with mixed reactions as some bar owners celebrated the possible opportunities while others worried about the potential impact to overindulgence and drunk driving.
Previous Ban on Discounted Drinks
During the late 1980’s, a new wave of awareness regarding impaired driving and drunk driving was sweeping the country. Advertising campaigns, interest groups, and even the United States Surgeon General expressed the need to curb the dangerous practice of driving under the influence (DUI). In 1989, Illinois lawmakers took action and passed a ban on happy hours and any other discounts on alcoholic beverages. The effort was designed to decrease alcohol consumption in public places, and therefore, the likelihood of DUI.
Medical Marijuana Program May Finally Get Underway
After many months of bureaucratic issues, the medical marijuana pilot program in Illinois may be poised to get off the ground. Officials at a facility in the southeastern part of the state announced this week that their company has received authorization to begin producing the genetic strains that will form the basis of marijuana products for approved legal use. Located in Albion, Illinois, Ataraxia is the first company to begin state-sanctioned production of marijuana under the medical-use program that went into effect nearly 20 months ago.
Medical Use Pilot Program
The Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act was passed into law nearly two years ago and took effect on January 1, 2014. The Act was intended to permit medial marijuana use on essentially a trial basis for specifically approved health conditions. Patients suffering from HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, hepatitis C, Rheumatoid arthritis, and various forms of cancer, among many other conditions are eligible to register for participation in the program. To date, approximately 2,600 applications have been approved by the Illinois Department of Public Health.
