Posted on June 24, 2015 in DUI

Consider a plausible scenario: you go out with friends for drinks after work one Friday afternoon. You stay for an hour or two, enjoy a few laughs and a couple beers, and then head home for a late dinner. While you are starting to feel the effects of the alcohol, you know you are going home to eat, and you did not have that much to drink. Two blocks from your house, you roll through a stop sign and get pulled over. The officer can smell beer on you and asks you to submit to a BAC test. You blow a 0.10 on the breathalyzer, and all of sudden, you have been arrested for driving under the influence. Such a situation could easily happen to anyone, and, fortunately, court supervision may offer individuals a way to recover from a relatively easy mistake.

While the Illinois Office of the Secretary of State handles the enforcement of administrative penalties, such as suspension of your driver’s license, you cannot be convicted without due process in criminal court. Depending on the severity of the case, including the circumstances of the DUI charge, injuries caused as a result, or serious property damage, many courts may opt to impose court supervision rather than full-fledged criminal penalties.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 22, 2015 in Your Rights

One of the cornerstones of American criminal law and jurisprudence is the assumption that all citizens are innocent until proven guilty. This most basic principle is designed to guide the actions of law enforcement, prosecutors, defenders, and the rules of courtroom procedure to ensure that an accused individual is not treated as guilty until the facts clearly demonstrate such to be true.

Presumption of Innocence

The concept of innocent until proven guilty, to the surprise of many, is not explicitly addressed in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights. However, the Fifth Amendment states that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. For centuries “due process of law” in western culture, has included the basic tenet that an accused individual must be proven guilty.

Among the earliest legal citations for the idea can be found in Digesta seu Pendectae¸ or the Digest, compiled in the 6^th century by the Roman emperor Justinian I. The Digest represented part of the Corpus Juris Civilis or the “Body of Civil Law.” Among the writings contained the Digest was the general rule of evidence: Ei inumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat—“Proof lies on he who asserts, not on he who denies.”  The United States Supreme Court officially recognized the presumption in its 1895 decision in Coffin v. United States.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 17, 2015 in Expungement

Have you ever wondered how the word “rap” came to mean “reputation?” Of course, it is almost always used in with a negative connotation, as someone with a shady past may be said to have a “bad rap.” Interestingly, it turns out that “rap” is not a colloquial shortening of “reputation,” but instead is an acronym taken from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as the FBI established an interstate standard for criminal history record-keeping. An individual’s criminal history is known as a Record of Arrests and Prosecution, or RAP Sheet.

If you have a criminal history, it is very important to have clear understanding of what may be listed on your RAP Sheet. Criminal background checks are a fairly common practice for employment, volunteer work, and other applications, and reviewing your history first can help prevent problems. Obtaining a copy of your RAP Sheet can help you:

Continue Reading ››

 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 ››