630-260-9647
Recent Blog Posts
Illinois Court Overturns Law for Weapon Possession Near Schools
In the February case of People v. Chairez, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that a state law banning the possession of a weapon within 1,000 feet of a public park was unconstitutional. Parks were part of a list of public places that have such a ban, and the supreme court stated that its decision did not affect the other properties on the list. However, criminal defense professionals predicted that the decision could be used as a guideline for similar weapon possession cases involving the other protected properties. It did not take long for this to occur, as an Illinois appellate court recently ruled that the 1,000-foot weapon ban outside a school is also unconstitutional.
Case Details
In People v. Green, a high school teacher observed a man in a security uniform who was allegedly wearing a holstered gun and standing outside a van across the street from the school. An assistant principal walked across the street to ask the man who he was and express his safety concerns. The man identified himself as a security guard. The teacher called the police, reporting that there was a man with a gun near the school. When the police officer arrived, the man was seated in his vehicle, and his holster was empty. However, the officer found the gun and ammunition after searching the vehicle. The man was charged and later convicted of two counts of unlawful use of a weapon for possessing a loaded weapon on a public street and within a vehicle. Because the incident happened within 1,000 feet of a school, the conviction was a class 3 felony, and the man was sentenced to one year of probation.
Is Proposed Carjacking Law Too Burdensome?
Chicago area police departments are reporting an increase in carjacking incidents during the last two years, particularly amongst juvenile offenders. They believe that Illinois’ criminal laws are contributing to the problem because police often only have enough evidence to charge suspects with misdemeanor trespass to vehicle, instead of felony possession of a stolen motor vehicle. The suspects are usually released within 24 hours, which allegedly allows them to commit the crime again. The proposed legislation would make it easier for police to bring a felony charge against a suspect and detain juvenile suspects for longer periods. The Illinois Senate has already unanimously passed the bill. However, civil rights advocates fear the new law would lead to more felony charges against non-violent offenders.
Law Details
Whether a suspect is charged with vehicle trespass or possession of a stolen motor vehicle depends on whether police have any evidence that the suspect knew the vehicle was stolen. If there are witnesses to the theft, they may be unable to identify the offender because of how quickly the incident occurred or if the offender was wearing a mask. The new law would assume that a suspect is aware that a vehicle is stolen if:
Domestic Violence Accusations Can Damage Your Reputation
Domestic violence charges brought against you can be resolved with little or no legal consequences. Prosecutors may drop the case due to a lack of evidence or a court may find you not guilty of the charge. Unfortunately, accusations of domestic violence can be enough to damage your reputation. Some people will jump to conclusions about your character without knowing the facts of the case. Even if you are never convicted, they may decide that you must have been guilty of some wrongdoing because you were charged. Clear vindication from your domestic violence accusations is the best way to restore your reputation.
Lack of Privacy
It can be nearly impossible to keep knowledge of domestic violence charges against you private:
- Your work may require you to tell them about any criminal charges against you;
Illinois Lawmakers Consider Trying Young Adults in Juvenile Court
Members of the Illinois House of Representatives have proposed legislation that would allow young adults to be tried in juvenile court. The bill would amend the Illinois Child and Family Services Act to change the definition of a delinquent minor:
- Starting in 2019, a delinquent minor would include anyone who committed a misdemeanor before the age of 19; and
- Starting in 2021, the age limit would expand to anyone who committed a misdemeanor before the age of 21.
Judges would be allowed to decide whether defendants ages 18 to 20 should appear before an adult or juvenile court. The goal of the legislation is to reduce the recidivism rate of younger offenders who may be legal adults but are still maturing mentally.
Benefits
Civil rights groups criticize the prison system for creating career criminals. Younger offenders are locked up with little concern for how they will start a new life upon their release. With limited job skills and a criminal record, some former convicts return to the criminal behavior that initially got them arrested. Going through the juvenile court system has many advantages because the goal is to rehabilitate the offender:
Recording Police Officers Is Allowed, With Some Limits
Video recordings of arrests can shed light on instances of police misconduct. A recording may show that the police officer’s account of the arrest was inaccurate or that the officer was overly aggressive with the suspect. The evidence may be enough to dismiss or reduce criminal charges. Police officers sometimes wear body cameras or have dashboard cameras in their vehicles. However, prosecutors will try to suppress video evidence that may hurt their argument. The defense can petition to obtain the video or present its own recording from the defendant or a third party. Illinois allows the public to record interactions with police officers, though there are circumstances in which it may be illegal.
Eavesdropping Law
Before a 2014 Illinois Supreme Court ruling, it was illegal to record a police officer during an arrest without his or her consent. After the law was deemed unconstitutional, Illinois lawmakers amended the section of the criminal code regarding eavesdropping. From the public's perspective, the changes improved the eavesdropping law in a couple of ways:
Warrant Not Required When Hospital Initiates Toxicology Test
A recent Illinois appellate court decision gained attention because it questioned the constitutionality of a state law that allows police to forcibly obtain a blood or urine sample after a person is arrested for driving under the influence. The court remanded a DUI conviction because police forced the defendant to provide samples without presenting a warrant, even though they had ample time to obtain one. The court stated that the Illinois law violates the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it allows police to conduct a warrantless search without needing to prove urgency. While it was a win for DUI defendants in the state, the decision applies only when specific circumstances occur. There are still scenarios where prosecutors can legally use results from blood or urine tests administered without a warrant.
Recent Example
In the case of People v. Sykes, the defendant was convicted on charges of driving under the influence of cannabis and child endangerment. The defendant had crashed her car into a wall after a day at the beach with her children. A responding police officer described her as smelling of alcohol and being disoriented. After she was taken to the hospital for examination, police arrested her on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. The defendant refused a police request to submit to a blood or urine test, and two police officers waited outside her room while she received further treatment. A doctor asked a nurse to obtain a urine sample to determine whether the woman had any intoxicating substances in her system that would explain her disoriented state. The woman refused to give a sample, and the nurse used a catheter to obtain it. The nurse requested the help of several people to hold the woman down while inserting the catheter, including the two police officers. The urine sample showed the woman had cannabis and PCP in her system. Prosecutors obtained the test results months later, which they used to add the DUI cannabis charge.
New Illinois Law Allows Immediate Sealing After No Conviction
Criminal charges brought against you that are acquitted or dismissed can still hurt your reputation by showing up on your record when someone does a background check. You can prevent such embarrassment by requesting that the public record of your arrest and charges be sealed. The only entities that would be allowed to see the sealed records without a court order would be:
- Law enforcement;
- The Department of Child and Family Services; and
- Employers that are required by law to conduct background checks for felony convictions.
Sealing your record is a legal process that requires court approval and the opportunity for the state to respond. A recently enacted Illinois law allows defendants whose cases end without a conviction to immediately request the record of the charges be sealed.
Immediate Sealing
The bill revised Illinois’ Criminal Identification Act so that a defendant can file for immediate sealing during the same hearing that he or she was acquitted or the charges were dismissed with prejudice. The law applies to all charges, except for minor traffic offenses. The court would be required to come to a decision during the same hearing, and prosecutors would not be allowed to object to the motion. Factors that the court is likely to consider when making the decision are:
Sleeping Judge Not Enough for Mistrial
Your trial when facing criminal charges is a vitally important moment in you life. A conviction can result in a prison sentence and will remain on your record. So, you may be understandably offended if a judge or juror falls asleep during your trial. The action implies that your trial is not worth staying awake for. You may even seek a mistrial on the grounds that a judge or juror was not paying proper attention during the trial. However, Illinois courts have ruled that an isolated incident of a person napping during a trial is not enough reason to cast doubt on the trial’s outcome.
Recent Example
A defendant recently appealed his first-degree murder conviction, on the grounds that there should have been a mistrial after a judge apparently fell asleep during testimony. The trial transcript shows an exchange between both counsel and the judge following a video testimony. The judge did not respond to repeated requests to turn the lights back on until a clerk reportedly poked him to wake him up. The jury eventually found the defendant guilty, and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole. The defense counsel filed a motion for a mistrial, claiming that the judge had fallen asleep multiple times during the trial. The judge denied both the motion and the allegation, stating that:
Unlawful Search Dismisses Drug Possession Conviction
An Illinois appellate court recently overturned a man’s conviction on the charge of unlawful possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. The defendant successfully argued that Illinois state troopers unlawfully seized and searched his vehicle before discovering the narcotics. A lower court had dismissed his request to suppress the evidence. Without legal evidence of narcotics possession, the appellate court ordered that the charge be dismissed.
Case Details
Six days before the defendant’s arrest, an undercover state trooper met the defendant in order to purchase narcotics. The defendant allegedly provided the state trooper with a small tube containing methamphetamine, but no money was exchanged. On the date of the arrest, the undercover trooper informed the state police that he believed the defendant was transporting narcotics. Police located the defendant’s vehicle, and a state trooper pulled him over for driving seven miles per hour over the speed limit. While the trooper was questioning the defendant and checking for any outstanding warrants, another trooper arrived with a dog trained to identify the presence of narcotics. The dog alerted the trooper to possible drugs in the car. The defendant allegedly gave his verbal consent for the troopers to search the vehicle, but they did not find any narcotics or evidence of hidden compartments. State police then transported the defendant and his vehicle to a local police station, claiming that impending rain would threaten the safety of the troopers at the scene. When at the station, the police began a second search and received written consent from the defendant. The troopers found tubes containing narcotics, located near the vehicle's air filter. The defendant was charged and later convicted, resulting in a 15-year prison sentence.
Being Charged with Criminal Transmission of HIV
Sexual assault cases, such as rape, hinge upon proving whether there was consent between both parties. Some consensual sex acts are also criminalized. Illinois law makes it illegal for someone to knowingly transmit HIV to an unaware person. The victim does not need to be infected in order for charges to be brought. Conviction on a criminal transmission of HIV charge is a class 2 felony, which can result in three to seven years in prison and fines of as much as $25,000. There have been situations where offenders with HIV have purposely or recklessly infected victims by having unprotected sex. However, spite can motivate some former lovers to make the criminal accusation.
Defining Criminal Acts
Since first adopting the criminal transmission of HIV law in 1989, Illinois has made several changes that narrow the scope of the offense. Not all sexual acts pose a reasonable risk of transmitting HIV. According to the law, there are three ways someone can criminally transmit HIV:
630-260-9647
From our office in Wheaton, Illinois, we serve clients throughout the Chicago area including but not limited to Winfield, Warrenville, West Chicago, Glen Ellyn, Naperville, Lisle, Downers Grove, Lombard, Oak Brook, DuPage County, Kane County, Will County, and Cook County.
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.
