Protecting the public from drunk drivers is a matter of public safety. No one thinks that intoxicated motorists should be allowed to roam freely on Illinois roads. But the fact is that many drivers are convicted of driving under the influence because they have serious alcohol abuse problems for which they need help.
Sometimes these substance abuse problems can lead to a stunning number of charges and Illinois DUI convictions in a very short period of time. Even after finding sobriety, these individuals can face long-lasting consequences from their past problems that prevent them ever getting back on the road. For many years, the State of Illinois refused to allow its citizens any driving privileges after their fourth DUI conviction regardless of their rehabilitation efforts. A new law has finally changed that. Illinois Restricted Driving Permits for Habitual DUI Offenders To be sure, the new law that went into effect in 2016 does not go easy on those who have four or more DUI convictions. Obtaining renewed driving privileges is not as simple as going to the DMV and taking a test. And, technically, what the law provides for is not actually a full license, but rather is a restricted driving permit or "RDP." To obtain a restricted driving permit, an individual who has previously been convicted of four or more DUIs will face an investigation by the State, must obtain affidavits establishing that he or she has been sober for at least three consecutive years, and must have completed state-approved rehabilitation. The application process can only begin five years after the last license revocation or date of release from incarceration. Furthermore, the permit only provides for driving during certain times and for certain purposes, such as going to and from work. The law also requires that an interlock ignition device is installed in the vehicle of the petitioner. The State estimates that the new law will make 5,000 people in the state of Illinois again eligible to drive if they meet the program’s requirements. In many ways, the provisions are similar to the driving privileges defendants may receive while a DUI case is pending. And the new law also makes it easy to again lose driving privileges if the RDP conditions are not scrupulously followed. Any new DUI conviction will result in the permit being immediately revoked, and the individual will then be permanently barred for applying for a new permit. It’s a welcome change to the law to see Illinois allow those who have turned their lives around one final opportunity to get back their driving privileges, but getting a restricted driving permit is not an easy process. The new law still puts quite a few obstacles in your path if you are looking to get back your driving privileges. If you need a restricted driving permit, you should speak with an experienced criminal law attorney who can guide you through the process. For more information, contact Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation about how you can obtain a restricted driving permit. The Illinois State Constitution and Illinois statutes provide for limits on what sort of sentences can be imposed for crimes. Sometimes the rules can be vague, however, and in those instances courts oftentimes interpret the rules to the disadvantage of criminal defendants. Take for example the recent Illinois Supreme Court case People v. Ligon.
Fake Gun Leads to Real Penalties In Ligon, the defendant approached a woman in Cook County and displayed what the woman believed to be firearm. The defendant then stole the woman's truck. Later, police learned that the weapon was actually a BB gun. The defendant was convicted at trial of aggravated vehicular hijacking with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm. Because this was the defendant's third conviction for a Class X felony, the court found that under Illinois law he was a habitual offender and sentenced him to life in prison. The defendant’s initial appeal was denied, and in 2012 he filed a motion to vacate his conviction, arguing that his sentence violated the proportionate sentencing clause of the Illinois State Constitution. This clause states that “All penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship.” Illinois courts have interpreted this to mean that a defendant cannot receive a harsher sentence for one crime that has the same elements of a lesser offense. The defendant in Ligon argued that in its prosecution, the State had only established that the BB gun brandished during the hijacking could have been a bludgeon. This, according to Ligon, actually constituted the lesser offense of armed violence with a Category III weapon, an offense predicated upon the vehicular hijacking. The defendant then argued that, under that theory, the State was required to establish that the weapon used by Ligon was an actual bludgeon in order to convict him of the more serious offense. The difference here, though technical and hinging on statutory interpretation, was huge. On his initial direct appeal, the Appellate Court agreed with Ligon and vacated his life sentence. The Supreme Court, however, took a different view of the case. Rather than side entirely with the State or the defendant, the Supreme Court took a middle path between finding that the BB gun was a bludgeon or a firearm. The Court declared that the BB gun was a “dangerous weapon” under the common law, meaning that it had the potential to be used as a bludgeon that could cause serious harm, and the distinction between that and an actual bludgeon was unimportant in this case. Chicago Appeals Attorney Illinois criminal cases are complicated and at times the law is unsettled. As the above case illustrates, the details can be the difference between a fathomable number of years in prison and a lifetime in the penitentiary. If you are facing serious charges involving weapons, then you need experienced legal representation that understands Illinois criminal law. If you or a loved one has already been found guilty, you need an experienced lawyer to represent you on appeal. For more information, contact Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. Illinois has long required that gun owners maintain a Firearm Owner's Identification card to possess firearms or ammunition within the State of Illinois.In 2013, the Illinois legislature made a new addition to the State’s often harsh gun laws by creating the Concealed Carry License.
Anyone wishing to conceal carry a firearm must have a FOID card. In addition, to obtain a Concealed Carry License from the State, you must:
While Illinois does not require nonresidents passing through the State to obtain a FOID card while in possession of firearms, nonresidents must also apply for a license to conceal carry in the State, and the requirements are even more stringent than for residents. 2015 Changes to Illinois Conceal Carry Laws As of 2015, even if you have a valid Concealed Carry License, police officers may secure your weapon if they stop you while you are in a car if they believe it is necessary to protect any person in the area. If the police determine that you are not a danger to anyone and are capable of possessing a firearm both physically and mentally, they may return it to you at any time. If you are taken into custody for any reason, police will inventory your firearm and issue you a receipt so that you may retrieve your firearm at a later time. The revisions to the law also affect concealed possession of a firearm while entering places that prohibit the concealed carry of weapons, such as courthouses or certain private businesses. The law previously required that the owner make sure his weapon is unloaded while parked in his vehicle before placing the firearm in the trunk for safekeeping. The 2015 changes to the law no longer require ensuring that it is unloaded before exiting your vehicle. Finally, the law adopts a new standard for developmental disability, which is a disqualification for a Concealed Carry License in Illinois. Under the new definition, someone is considered to be developmentally disabled if he or she is over the age of 14 and has significant limitations with at least three of the following: self-care, receptive and expressive language, mobility, learning, or self-direction. Obtaining a Concealed Carry License Illinois has tough gun laws, and it can be all too easy to run afoul of them no matter how careful you are. But remember, you have a constitutional right to carry a firearm. If you are interested in exercising that right in Illinois, you must first obtain a concealed carry license. If you have been denied a concealed carry license or would like more information on obtaining one, contact Barney & Hourihane. Most people understand that the Constitution prevents police officers from searching their home or person without a warrant or probable cause. But over the years, courts have carved out certain exceptions to that rule. Police may enter a home if they believe there is an imminent threat of danger to someone. While police may not be able to search your entire home during an arrest, they can search the immediate area around you. In recent years, as more and more people use computers and cell phones, new issues related to search and seizure have been analyzed by the courts. So far, these decisions uphold the idea that police cannot search your electronics without probable cause.
Searching Cell Phones Virtually everyone has a cell phone, and if you are arrested for any crime, the police will take your cell phone into custody and hold it with your other personal possessions until you are released. But the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case Riley v. California established that law enforcement officials may not search the electronic contents of a cell phone without a warrant or probable cause. This both clarified what police are able to do with cell phones and muddied the waters a bit. The Supreme Court was clear that police may examine the physical phone as much as they wish. But something truly incriminating would have to be on the outside of the phone in order to provide law enforcement with a reason to search it without a warrant. Police may be able to obtain a warrant if as part of their investigation they believe the phone’s memory contains information related to suspected criminal conduct they have a reasonable suspicion of. They will likely also be able to search the phone if they believe doing so is necessary to prevent the imminent harm to another. However, any search of the phone will have to be related to the arrest and what the police observed prior to it. If the police observe the phone used as part of a suspected drug deal, a court will probably have no problem issuing a warrant allowing the police to search it. But if police stop a suspect with a small amount of drugs and he or she was not using the phone at the time of the arrest, a court will almost certainly not grant a warrant allowing authorities to search the phone’s electronic contents. A court would likely also suppress any evidence that police obtained from searching a phone without a warrant in such a case. Need Legal Help? Search and seizure issues are among the most complicated in criminal defense cases. The slightest difference in the facts of a case can result in completely different outcomes That’s why it’s so important to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney if you or a loved one have been charged with a crime in the Chicago area, and you believe the police may have violated your constitutional rights. For more information, contact Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. The Illinois Controlled Substance Act makes it a crime to possess illegal drugs either for personal use or with intent to distribute. It covers many types of controlled substances including illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, as well as look-a-like substances and prescription drugs. Whether you’re accused of possessing a small amount of marijuana or a more significant amount of harder drugs, a conviction under the Controlled Substances Act can have grave consequences that could affect your freedom, ability to find a job, and other rights. Because of this, it’s important to consult with a criminal defense attorney with experience defending drug cases as soon as possible after you’ve been arrested.
What The Prosecution Must Prove if You’ve Been Charged with a Drug Crime Merely possessing a controlled substance is not enough to establish guilt. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that requires prosecutors to establish certain facts to get a conviction. In order to obtain a conviction for possession of a controlled substance, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: · That the substance in question is actually illegal under Illinois law, or a controlled lookalike substance defined in the Controlled Substance Act. · That the defendant knowingly possessed the substance in question. · That the defendant had either actual or constructive possession of the substance. This means that the drugs were either found on the defendant or in a vehicle, and that police followed the law when finding the drugs. If a prosecutor cannot prove each of these things, then a defendant cannot be convicted of a crime under the Controlled Substance Act. While each case is unique, often it is difficult for prosecutors facing an attorney who is experienced with defending drug cases to prove each of these elements. Often, there are extenuating circumstances that courts will consider. One common defense in drug cases is to argue that the actions of the police amounted to an unlawful search and seizure. Police must have a warrant or probable cause to search you or your property, and if they do not have probable cause, they have violated your constitutional rights. In that case, a court will not allow any evidence that the police illegally obtained to be introduced at trial. If prosecutors cannot introduce any evidence of drugs found by police, they simply have no case. In addition, there might be circumstances showing that the drugs belonged to someone else or that a defendant did not know that he or she was in possession of illegal drugs. Any of these defenses may be argued to dismiss or reduce drug charges. Chicago Gun Crimes Lawyer Drug crimes are extremely serious. A conviction for drug possession can not only result in jail time, but also make it harder to find steady employments. That’s why it’s so important to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney if you or a loved one have been charged with a drug crime in the Chicago area. For more information, contact Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. As the city of Chicago has long been plagued by gun violence, the state of Illinois is known for some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Any person in the state of Illinois who wants to legally possess firearms or ammunition must apply for a Firearm Owners Identification Card with the Illinois State Police. Filling out a simple form online is the first step to obtaining a FOID card, but the police conduct a lengthy background check to determine whether or not they will issue a FOID card to an applicant. By statute, this process is only supposed to last 30 days, but often it takes 60 days or longer for the state police to issue a FOID card.
Who May Receive a FOID Card? Under 430 ILCS 65/41, anyone over the age of 21 is eligible for a FOID card. Those under the age of 21 wishing to obtain a FOID card through the Illinois State Police may do so with the written consent of a parent or guardian who is also eligible for a FOID card, so long as the minor has not been convicted of any misdemeanor more serious than a traffic violation. FOID cards remain valid for 10 years after being issued by the state police. Any Illinois resident in possession of firearms without a valid FOID card may be arrested and subject to misdemeanor or felony charges. However, non-residents who enter the state of Illinois with firearms or ammunition are not required to obtain a FOID card. Who May Be Denied a FOID Card? While the qualifications for obtaining a FOID card sound relatively simple, there are several circumstances under which an application can be denied, which is the reason why it can take the state police so long to investigate whether or not someone meets the qualifications for eligibility. Common issues that can cause a FOID card application to be rejected include: · A prior felony conviction · An addiction to narcotics that can independently verified · A stay within a mental institution within the past five years before applying for a FOID card · An order of protection is in force against the applicant · A prior misdemeanor conviction for domestic battery This list is by no means exhaustive, so consulting with an attorney is important to determine if you have been wrongfully denied a FOID card. In many circumstances, a FOID card can also be revoked. In that case, the FOID card and any firearms in the possession of the FOID card holder must be turned over to a local law enforcement agency immediately. However, as long the card holder is not expressly barred by the statute from obtaining a FOID card, in many cases they can successfully re-apply for a FOID card and petition a court for the return of any confiscated firearms. Chicago Gun Crimes Lawyer If you are having trouble obtaining a FOID card or believe you have had firearms wrongfully confiscated by the police, then an experienced Chicago criminal defense attorney can help you navigate the complicated web of Illinois gun laws. For more information, contact Barney & Hourihane for a consultation. If Police Have Probable Cause, Calling for A Narcotics Dog Doesn’t Violate the Fourth Amendment2/22/2016
Whether the police have probable cause to detain a suspect and perform a search with a narcotics-sniffing dog is often a very fact sensitive question. However, a recent Illinois case, also based on a U.S. Supreme Court case, has shed some new light on how long the police can detain someone while awaiting the arrival of drug dog, and under what circumstances that detention can occur.
People v. Reedy In People v. Reedy, Will County Sheriff’s Deputies, not far from Chicago, pulled over two men after they noticed the driver repeatedly drifting over the fog line. Deputies questioned the men for a few minutes and checked to see if they had warrants, as is typical in a traffic stop. The men were patted down, and deputies discovered one of the men had a large amount of cash. Less than five minutes after the stop was initiated, a narcotics officer and his drug-sniffing canine arrived. The dog indicated that drugs were present in the vehicle. The deputies conducted a search and discovered a truly massive haul of contraband, specifically 900 grams of heroin. The suspects were taken into custody and charged with various drug crimes. Both men then filed motions to suppress the drug evidence, which were granted by the trial court after finding that the deputies lacked reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search the vehicle. The Third District Court of Appeals initially reversed the trial court, but then allowed a rehearing following a related Supreme Court decision just eleven days later, Rodriguez v. United States. That case held that “a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.” The Court of Appeals upheld its initial ruling finding that the wait for the narcotics dog did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the two men, however, there is still no hard and fast rule for what amounts to a delay for police to get a drug-sniffing drug. In Reedy, the court found that asking the defendants questions for five minutes was not an unreasonable delay. However, in other cases, Illinois courts have found that a 15 minute delay was an unreasonable amount of time to detain suspects while waiting for narcotics-sniffing dog. Ultimately, while Reedy has slightly clarified how long police have to question someone before the arrival of a drug dog, what is unreasonable is going to depend on each individual case and the actions of the officers involved, which is why knowledgeable legal representation is so important if you’ve been charged with a serious drug crime in the state of Illinois. Need Legal Help? If you’ve been charged with a drug crime, you need an experienced criminal defense on your side who will ensure that your Constitutional rights are protected at every stage of a criminal case. For a consultation, contact Barney & Hourihane, LLP today. Of course every city and village in the state of Illinois has a police force. Counties have sheriffs, and there’s even the Illinois State Police. But can a county prosecutor also have a private police force conduct investigations for him? It sounds excessive given the number of law enforcement agencies that are already present in the state, and lower courts have already found that these special enforcement units violate Illinois law. Now, the issue is about to head to the Illinois Supreme Court
A State’s Attorney Sets Up a SAFE Unit In 2011, the LaSalle County State’s Attorney created the State’s Attorney Felony Enforcement Unit with the specific aim of patrolling I-80 to seize drugs and cash from suspected drug dealers coming in from western states such as California and Arizona. The SAFE Unit soon made several major busts, five of which have been consolidated in the case People v. Ringland. All of the defendants have filed motions to suppress the evidence obtained against them, and after prevailing at the trial court level, the case was appealed last year. In addition to arrests initiated by the SAFE Unit, in some cases its investigators only issued warnings. In one instance, the SAFE Unit pulled over a driver for speeding. A drug-sniffing dog indicated the presence of 11 marijuana joints, which were seized along with $50,000 in cash. The driver was not criminally charged, but such seizures accomplished the goals of the SAFE Unit and funded it through the state’s attorney’s office. While state law allows prosecutors to appoint “special investigators” to serve subpoenas and work toward “conducting investigations that assist the State’s Attorney with his duties,” the appellate court found that a group such as the SAFE Unit was far beyond anything allowed by statute, and in fact made police superfluous. The court held that a special investigator can only assist a prosecutor once police have properly brought the case before the office. While the SAFE Unit is currently off the roads, the LaSalle County State’s Attorney appealed the case to the Illinois Supreme Court, which is expected to hear it in May of this year. While anything is possible when the case goes before the high court, it is hard to imagine that the Supreme Court will reverse the court of appeals given the unanimous nature of its opinion and its strong rebuke of the LaSalle County State’s Attorney’s Office. If the Supreme Court does indeed side with the defendants, their convictions will be tossed out, and it is doubtful that any other state’s attorneys in Illinois will attempt to create similar SAFE Units. Contact a Chicago Defense Attorney Illinois courts take drug and firearm cases seriously. A conviction for one of these crimes can mean years behind bars, so you need an experienced Chicago defense attorney on your side who can recognize when police have violated state law and who will fight to suppress illegally obtained evidence at trial For more information, contact Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. You’ve probably heard defendants argue that the police entrapped them into committing a crime in certain TV shows. Most people think this merely means showing that the police lured you into doing something illegal, but entrapment actually has a highly nuanced definition in the state of Illinois, and establishing entrapment as a defense is not nearly as simple as claiming the police tricked you into doing something that got you arrested.
Entrapment Under Illinois Law Under 720 ILCS 5/7-12, entrapment is defined as conduct that is “incited or induced by a public officer or employee, or agent of either, for the purpose of obtaining evidence for the prosecution of that person.” The statute goes on to state a predisposition for the illegal activity or merely acting on an opportunity to engage in the illegal act offered by law enforcement does not constitute entrapment. Courts have held that entrapment is along the lines of police coming up with an entire plot to get a defendant involved with selling drugs and then arresting him once he has joined in on the conspiracy, while merely offering to buy drugs from a defendant who is already engaging in the sale of a controlled substance would not constitute entrapment. Establishing Entrapment at Trial To prove entrapment in court, a defendant initially has the burden of showing that law enforcement induced him to act illegally, meaning that he would not have committed any crime if the police hadn’t first come up with it. If the defendant can establish this, then the burden shifts to the prosecution. When the defendant produces evidence of entrapment, the state must show beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no evidence of entrapment The state’s attorney must then show that the defendant had a predisposition to commit the crime. This mean showing that the defendant had an inclination to the commit the crime, which could be established simply by showing that the defendant was quick to purchase illegal drugs from an informant if offered them. Overcoming predisposition in that case would require showing that the defendant had no urge to purchase drugs until an informant continually badgered him into purchasing them and violating the law. As illustrated above, the differences between what does and does not constitute entrapment can be highly technical and fact specific. This can make establishing an entrapment defense extremely difficult in even the best of circumstances. Attempting to use entrapment as a defense also carries some risk as it basically means admitting that a crime was committed, but that there was a good reason to do an illegal act. For these reasons, it’s important to enlist an experienced criminal defense attorney before pursuing an entrapment defense. Chicago Criminal Defense If you’re facing drugs or firearms charges, the State’s Attorney’s Office will likely be looking to hit you with a heavy sentence. That’s why it’s so important to choose a Chicago criminal defense attorney who understands how to protect your rights and if it’s appropriate to use a defense like entrapment. For more information, contact Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. |
Archives
May 2019
Categories
All
|