TELEPHONES ANSWERED 24 HOURS A DAY
FREE CONSULTATION
312-629-0669
Recent Blog Posts
Police Not Responsible for Failing to Record Audio of DUI Stop
In an age of mass surveillance, it is no surprise police officers routinely record traffic stops using dashboard cameras. These cameras often provide valuable evidence in drunk driving cases. The proper use of such evidence was the subject of a recent decision by an Illinois appeals court.
Specifics of the Appeal
The appeal dealt with a trial judge's decision to exclude all evidence obtained from a police dashboard camera during a 2012 traffic stop. Police in the Cook County village of Orland Park stopped a driver going approximately 15 miles per hour over the speed limit. According to the officers, the driver “had glassy/watery eyes, his breath smelled of alcohol, and he stated that he drank two beers.” The officers administered a number of field sobriety tests, which the driver failed.
Distinguishing Between “Reasonable Suspicion” and “Probable Cause” in Justifying Drug Searches
Although the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires police to obtain a warrant based on “probable cause” before searching a person's property, the Supreme Court has long recognized a lower standard of proof when it comes to police stops of vehicles. In these cases, police may search a person's car or other vehicle based on “reasonable suspicion” of “possible criminal behavior.” A court must examine the “totality of the circumstances” in determining whether a police officer's suspicion is reasonable.
Recent Case in Illinois
An Illinois appeals court panel recently reversed a trial court's decision to suppress evidence from a traffic stop that uncovered evidence of illegal drug possession. The stop took place in March 2012. Police had information that a specific truck was likely involved in the transport of illegal drugs from the Mexican border to Chicago. The truck was spotted at a Chicago hotel. The driver, a woman, was on a Drug Enforcement Administration list of persons “involved in a narcotics trafficking organization.”
Supreme Court Says Police Need Warrant to Search Cellphones
May the police search your cellphone without a warrant? On June 25, the United States Supreme Court said that in most cases, the answer is “no.” The Court ruled in two cases where police seized and searched a suspect's cell phone without a warrant. Federal and state officials argued that such searches, when conducted as part of an arrest, do not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed.
Riley v. California
The first case reviewed by the Court involved a man in California initially stopped for a minor traffic violation and driving with a suspended license. Police searched the man's car and discovered illegal firearms. Police arrested the man and searched his cellphone without a warrant. The cellphone led police to uncover additional evidence connecting the man to a gang shooting. A jury convicted the defendant on several charges, and the California courts rejected his appeal on the grounds the police illegally searched his phone.
Illinois Court Chides Police for Illegal Pat-Down Search
Police officers must have a “reasonable suspicion” before stopping and frisking a person thought to be in possession of illegal drugs. On June 12 of this year, an Illinois appeals court overturned a drug conviction after finding police acted unreasonably in searching a defendant based solely on an uncorroborated witness account that a drug deal had taken place. The court's decision also illustrates the importance of having proper defense counsel in drug cases, as the defendant unsuccessfully represented himself at trial.
A Questionable Pat-Down
The case arose from a February 2011 incident involving the defendant and a pair of Chicago police officers. A woman approached the officers and told them she had just purchased illegal drugs from a man on a nearby street corner. She apparently gave the officers a description of the man, although the officers did not provide those details in their official report or later as trial witnesses.
Federal Court Reverses Drug Conviction Based on Faulty Police Affidavit
Police often use confidential sources to get information in drug investigations. When a source identifies a suspect, police must still obtain a proper search warrant from a judge before acting upon the information. It is incumbent upon the officer to file an affidavit with the court explaining his or her use of a confidential source and furnishing sufficient information regarding the source's credibility. Failure to do so may result in a trial or appellate court rejecting the evidence gathered from the warrant.
Reversed Convictions from 2010 Case
Recently a federal appeals court in Chicago reversed the convictions of an accused drug dealer based on a faulty police affidavit. The appeals court emphasized that it was a “close” call but found the police had failed to provide any meaningful information regarding the credibility of an informant who was instrumental in the defendant's identification and arrest.
Courts Take a Deferential Approach to K-9 Unit Drug Searches
Police commonly use specially trained dogs—sometimes called “K-9 units”—to assist in detecting the presence of illegal drugs. Last year, the United States Supreme Court clarified the role of such dogs in establishing probable cause to search a defendant's vehicle. The Florida Supreme Court had held that police must establish the dog's reliability by introducing “the dog's training and certification records,” “field performance records,” and “evidence concerning the experience and training of the officer handling the dog,” among other things. The U.S. Supreme Court said such an “exhaustive” demonstration was unnecessary. Instead, prosecutors need only introduce the dog's training records to show it is a reliable detector of possible drugs. The dog's actual record in the field—the number of hits or misses—is not relevant to a probable-cause determination.
Understanding Your Rights in a Criminal Trial
A person facing federal drug charges must always be prepared to assert his or her constitutional rights before and during trial. Once a jury convicts, it becomes much more difficult for a defendant to assert those rights on appeal. A recent decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago illustrates the uphill climb drug defendants face.
An Unprompted Confession
The underlying case involved a man accused of possessing and distributing crack cocaine. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) paid the man's nephew to go to his house, purchase cocaine, and then bring the drugs to the DEA. The DEA also fashioned the nephew with an audio/visual device so he could record the purchase.
Based on the recording and the drugs, the DEA agents obtained a search warrant. The agents then sent the nephew back to his uncle's house to make a second drug purchase. Following that, the agents then executed a raid on the uncle's house. During the search, agents detained the uncle and other occupants of the house. At this point, the uncle twice said, “don't worry, everything in that room is mine,” referring to the illegal narcotics agents seized.
Does Amnesia Render a Defendant Unfit to Stand Trial?
Under Illinois law, the state may not try a defendant who is “is unable to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense.” The law presumes all defendants are fit to stand trial unless there is expert testimony that can prove otherwise. Recently, the Illinois Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant who suffered brain damage, and therefore could not recall the events leading to his criminal trial, was unfit to stand trial.
Self-Inflicted Wound Led to Brain Damage
According to testimony offered in court—but, it should be noted, not at a criminal trial where guilt was determined—the defendant in this case broke into his ex-wife's house and held her and two other persons at gunpoint. The ex-wife managed to call 911, and a police tactical team subsequently arrived and surrounded the house. Following a standoff with police, the defendant apparently shot himself in the head. Police entered the house and found the defendant “lying face down and bleeding.”
A Police Threat to “Kick Down the Door” Is an Arrest
How far may police go in pursuing a suspected drunk driver? Driving under the influence is a criminal offense in Illinois and police must follow certain procedures when detaining and charging a suspect. Failure to follow these procedures may lead a court to dismiss a drunk driving case even when there is substantial evidence of a defendant's guilt. A recent Illinois appeals court decision offers one example of how police error can affect a drunk driving case.
When Is a Suspect Under Arrest?
In June 2012, a woman returned home after attending a local festival in Joliet. Shortly thereafter, the woman's husband answered the door to find two police officers. The police were investigating a report of a hit-and-run accident. They asked to speak with the wife. The husband permitted the officers to enter the residence.
The woman was in the bathroom at the time. The officers heard her vomiting. The police demanded she open the door. One of the officers said, “If you don't open up the door, I am going to kick it in.” The woman complied and later told another officer that she had been drinking and got into an accident. She then agreed to go down to the police station, where she took and failed a sobriety test. The state then charged her with driving under the influence.
Protecting a Defendant's Right to a “Speedy Trial”
Drunk driving in Illinois can legally mean a few different things. Illinois law defines driving “under the influence of alcohol” as a separate offense from driving when “the alcohol concentration in the person's blood or breath is 0.08 or more.” In other words, the state can prove a person drove under the influence without necessarily proving he or she also drove with a blood-alcohol level above the legal limit. And while it is not uncommon for prosecutors to charge defendants with both offenses, the state must always obey important constitutional safeguards.
The Illinois Constitution requires a defendant to receive “a speedy public trial” on any charges. Illinois defines “speedy” as “within 160 days from the date defendant demands trial unless delay is occasioned by defendant.” Failure to comply with this deadline means a court must dismiss the charge against the defendant, regardless of the evidence against him or her. For example, in a recent Illinois appeals court decision, the judges agreed with a trial court's dismissal of a DUI charge added more than a year after the case began.
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.
