TELEPHONES ANSWERED 24 HOURS A DAY
FREE CONSULTATION
312-629-0669
Recent Blog Posts
Circumstantial Evidence & Prescription Drug DUI Charges
Driving under the influence does not always require the use of alcohol or an illegal drug. Under Illinois law, a person commits a crime whenever he or she drives “under the combined influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving.” This can include prescription drugs. In fact, because prescription drugs are more difficult to chemically test on the road, courts may be more likely to convict a defendant for prescription drug DUI based on mere circumstantial evidence.
Evidence to Support a DUI Conviction in Illinois
In all DUI cases, a defense attorney will closely examine the circumstances of the police stop as well as the specific evidence collected which suggest that a driver was under the influence. In most cases the initial stop is spurred by violation of some traffic law — like weaving between lanes or speeding.
Faulty Breathalyzer Tests Lead to False DUI Convictions
All Illinois residents appreciate the dangers of drunk driving. But it is important that efforts to improve traffic safety prevent DUI-related accidents do not lead to the trampling of rights for those suspected of DUI.
In 2012, more than 10,000 people died in alcohol-related crashes in the United States, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. By NHTSA’s own estimate, that works out to one death every 51 minutes because of an alcohol-impaired driver. Given such statistics, police and prosecutors take the enforcement of drunk driving laws seriously. Yet, this also leads to an overreach, and prosecutors may be winning DUI convictions based on faulty evidence.
The problem: malfunctioning breath test machines.
A Nationwide Issue
Questions about the accuracy of breathalyzer machines have been prevalent for years, and the problem is far from solved. The same types of machines are used by police departments across the country, leading to questions about accuracy being raised nationwide.
Illinois Court Rules U-Turn Did Not Justify Police Stop
Although the Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches” without a warrant, the courts have long held there is an exception for “reasonable” highway checkpoints where police may stop all cars in a designated area. In some cases, a motorist who intentionally avoids a roadblock may provide police with reasonable suspicion to stop and search his vehicle. But this is not always the case, as a recent Illinois appeals court decision explains.
People v. Timmsen
In December 2011, Illinois State Police operated a checkpoint at Highway 136 near a railroad crossing. The defendant was traveling down the highway when he made a legal U-turn before reaching the roadblock. State police stopped the defendant, checked his license and registration, then arrested him since his license was suspended.
Illinois Police May Search Your Luggage, Even Without a Warrant
Earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court drastically expanded the scope of drug searches that police may conduct without a warrant. Normally, the Fourth Amendment requires police obtain a warrant from a judge before searching a person's home or belongings. There is a long-recognized exception to this requirement for searches that take place “incident to arrest.” This exception allows police to conduct an immediate search of a person under arrest, without a warrant, to ensure he or she is not carrying weapons that might endanger the officer's safety or, alternatively, to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence related to the arrest.
In other words, if police arrest a person for illegal drug possession, they may search the person or any area “under his immediate control” to locate evidence related to said drug possession. But what about when the person is under arrest for a non-drug-related charge? Can police still conduct a warrantless search for drugs?
Judges May Not Impose Harsh Sentences Without Cause
The importance of having a qualified Illinois criminal defense attorney cannot be overstated when a person faces serious federal or state drug charges. Prosecutors and judges often deal with drug offenders harshly—in many cases, too harshly. Zealous representation is often the only safeguard a person has when facing years, if not decades, in prison.
An Unexplained Sentence
A recent decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago illustrates how good representation can protect a client's interests. The defendant in this case pleaded guilty to possessing more than 750 grams of heroin. While he did not contest his guilt, his attorney still proved invaluable when it came to sentencing.
In federal drug cases, judges must adhere to a series of guidelines published by the United States Sentencing Commission. These guidelines establish “ranges” based on a defendant's crime and past record. Prosecutors and defense attorneys may then argue for adjustments upward or downward from the sentencing range. The judge determines the ultimate sentence, but any significant departure from the guidelines must be explained.
Survey Shows Rockford Leads Illinois in Drunk Driving Arrests
On July 1st, the Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists (AAIM) released its annual survey charting arrests for driving under the influence throughout the State of Illinois. AAIM is a citizens’ group, partly funded by the Illinois Department of Transportation, that focuses on helping victims of drunk driving in the State of Illinois. The group is perhaps best known for its “Drunkbusters” program, which encourages citizens to report drunk or erratic driving to police.
AAIM Actions
For more than 20 years, AAIM has surveyed state and local police departments throughout Illinois to document DUI arrests. According to the most recent survey, which included more than 700 police departments and covered drunk driving arrests in 2013, the Rockford police recorded the most DUI arrests of any department for the seventh consecutive year. Rockford tallied 556 arrests, which actually represented a 20 percent decrease from 2012. Naperville finished a close second with 553 arrests, followed by Decatur (485), Springfield (410), and Carol Stream (392).
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.
A police dashboard camera recorded the entire stop, including the sobriety tests. During pre-trial discovery, the driver requested the recording. The prosecution complied, but the defense discovered the recording was limited to video. Apparently, the officers “forgot to activate” the device responsible for recording audio before approaching the driver.
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.
134 N LaSalle St, Suite 860,
Chicago, IL 60602
TELEPHONES ANSWERED
24 HOURS A DAY
312-629-0669
Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney134 N LaSalle St, Suite 860,
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.
