You’ve probably heard the phrase “probable cause” fairly often in connection with criminal cases. The words seem somewhat self-explanatory, but they actually have a specific meaning in a legal context, and if police fail to show that they have probable cause to take an action in connection with an arrest, it can mean that charges are dismissed, or a conviction can be reversed on appeal.
The Law Requires That Police Have Probable Cause Law enforcement must show that they have probable cause to either get a search warrant or make an arrest. The concept is rooted in the Fourth Amendment requirement that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,” but the term isn’t defined in the Constitution, leaving it up to courts to interpret. Given the somewhat abstract nature of the concept, the line is that probable cause must be something more than a mere hunch. A police officer cannot say he just felt that someone looked like a drug dealer to make an arrest (even if that person is found to have drugs in his or her possession). But the officer is not required to obtain the same amount of evidence that would be required for a conviction in order to have probable cause either. In this case, he wouldn’t necessarily have to wait around for the defendant to sell drugs to make an arrest. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Illinois v. Gates, probable cause was somewhat vaguely defined as “practical, non-technical" term that relies on an individual analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case. Determining probable cause largely comes down to determining whether a reasonable person would believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. This means that it’s often up to an attorney to argue that no probable cause existed. What Happens When Police Lack Probable Cause? As probable cause is the basis for any action by law enforcement in a criminal case, lack of it can destroy the prosecution’s case. Any evidence that is seized from a search that police undertook without probable cause should be suppressed by the court. In many cases, if this is the only evidence the state has related to the crime, the charges will be dismissed. Similarly, if it appears that the police did not act reasonably in finding probable cause when making an initial arrest, anything discovered related to that arrest will not be allowed in court. These issues can be raised at the beginning of a case in the hopes of having charges dismissed, or later on as the basis for reversing a conviction on appeal. Chicago Defense Law Probable cause can be the difference between a criminal conviction and charges being dismissed. For this reason, if you believe law enforcement lacked probable cause to make an arrest in your case, an experienced appellate attorney may be able to get your criminal conviction vacated on appeal. For more information, contact the Chicago offices of Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. In recent months, protests have been a constant sight in the streets of Chicago, as residents have banded together to voice their concerns about police misconduct and police brutality. Each week it seems like there’s some new story in the media about a Chicago police officer shooting or otherwise injuring a seemingly innocent person without any consequences. But one of the reasons that police officers are rarely held accountable following these incidents is that state law makes it difficult to prove a case of misconduct against a law enforcement officer in Illinois.
Chicago Police and Qualified Immunity There are three ways to seek redress for police misconduct. The first is an internal investigation by the department. The second is to work with the state’s attorney’s office to pursue a criminal case. The third way, which can result in financial compensation from a department for injuries sustained by a rogue police officer is to pursue a civil lawsuit. When pursuing a civil lawsuit against another civilian, it’s typically required that the plaintiff proved that the defendant acted negligently, meaning that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff. This is a relatively low hurdle to clear for many personal injury cases. However, a plaintiff must prove significantly more serious conduct on the part of a police officer when suing them in their official capacity. Illinois law recognizes qualified immunity for police officers in civil lawsuits. This means that it’s not enough to merely prove that a police officer acted negligently, the plaintiff must prove that his or her injury was the result of the officer’s “willful and wanton conduct.” The plaintiff must show that the police officer then purposely caused injuries without any valid reason such as the plaintiff fighting back during an arrest, or that the officer simply didn’t care about the plaintiff’s safety in the course of his or her actions. The idea behind qualified immunity is to help police officers do their jobs without the constant fear that they might be sued by every person that they come into contact with. Unfortunately, far too often, police officers seem to think that qualified immunity means they can abuse the rights of citizens without any fear of reprisal. While qualified immunity makes it more difficult to prove a case against a police officer, it’s still not impossible to win a police misconduct case in court, especially with the help of an experienced Chicago civil rights attorney. Contact a Chicago Civil Rights Lawyer Police have more authority than the average citizen to detain and arrest suspects, and sometimes they’re even justified in using some force to make those arrests, but police are never entitled violate civil rights by beating or shooting people who have done nothing wrong. If you’ve been injured by police misconduct in Illinois, you need an attorney on your side who will fight to ensure you’re fairly compensated for your injuries. For more information, contact the Chicago offices of Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. A recent Illinois Supreme Court illustrates how prosecutors can overcharge crimes, resulting in harsh penalties for minor infractions, but that an experienced appellate attorney can have these charges reduced or even thrown out by challenging the interpretation of a statute.
People v. Bradford The case in question People v. Bradford, in which a defendant was accused of stealing from a Walmart in Bloomington, Illinois. The defendant allegedly took two DVDs from the electronics section and returned them at the customer service for a gift card. He was accused of then taking a hat and shoes without paying for them and using the fraudulently obtained gift card to pay for the purchase of a friend who ran from the store when police arrived. If that sounds like a pretty clear cut case of shoplifting to you, that’s because it is. Each day, hundreds of people are charged with misdemeanors for similar crimes. In Illinois, such crimes are defined as retail theft, and punishable by up to a year in prison, but usually just result in probation. However, in this case, prosecutors sought to charge the defendant with burglary, a felony that he was ultimately convicted of. Under 720 ILCS 5/19-1, burglary is defined as “when without authority he or she knowingly enters or without authority remains within a building… with intent to commit therein a felony or theft.” The classic example of a burglary is of course someone breaking into a home or building at night when no one is around to steal cash or valuables. But in this case, prosecutors attempted to extend the meaning of burglary to argue that the defendant was within the Walmart “without authority” once he improperly obtained the gift card from the store. They argued that anything he took after this, such as the shoes and hats, amounted to a burglary. Both the trial court and the appellate court sided with the state. The problem with this argument was that the state could never pinpoint exactly when the defendant lost his authority to be in the store. No employee approached the defendant until after he attempted to take the items of clothing. He was only within the store during business hours. He was never accused of entering the store when it closed or accessing a part of it that wasn’t normally open to the public. The Illinois Supreme Court saw that this argument made no sense as it would then become impossible to distinguish a burglary from a retail theft, two crimes that the legislature has clearly intended to be charged separately. The defendant’s conviction was reversed, and if he faces additional charges related to the incident, they will be much less serious than burglary. Contact a Chicago Criminal Appeals Lawyer Prosecutors make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes mean that defendants face lengthy punishments that are unnecessary and unfair. An appellate attorney can review your case and determine whether you have grounds to have your criminal conviction reversed. For more information, contact Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. |
Archives
May 2019
Categories
All
|