Supreme Court Hears Eavesdropping Case Today

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a lawsuit brought by lawyers, journalists and civil rights organizations challenging the 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which allows for the government to eavesdrop on telephone and email communications between people in the United states and foreign countries without a warrant.  The plaintiffs claim that the fear that they may be intercepted causes them to adopt costly measures to avoid having their communications intercepted.  The Supreme Court is not considering the legalchicity of this law. Rather, they are considering whether the plaintiff's in this case have the legal standing to even bring such a lawsuit.  The warrant-less wiretapping program was put into effect by President Bush after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 without any Congressional authority. The program ended in 2007 but was reinstated by Congress in 2008.  The government is claiming that the plaintiffs cannot show that they have personally been harmed by the measure or by any wiretapping.  The plaintiffs argue that nobody could ever know if they are being wiretapped and that some of the people being listened in to would be foreign nationals who would not be allowed to contest the law anyway.  The decision in this case is not going to resolve this issue anyway.  The court is not considering the legality of this law at this time and even if it were to ever have to consider the legality of the law, the government could always claim that any challenge to the law would involve exposing state secrets.  

The case is Clapper v. Amnesty International.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Considering Dog Drug Sniffing Cases Today

On December 5, 2006 a "crime stopper" had tipped off the police that marijuana was being grown inside the home of Joelis Jardines home near Miami Florida. Armed with this tip, a police officer went to the door of the residence with a trained drug sniffing Labrador Retriever named Franky. Franky sniffed the door and sat down, continuing to sniff the bottom of the door. The dog had been trained to give that sign if it smelled marijuana. The police then obtained a search warrant of Jardines's home and entered to find Jardines was growing marijuana plants inside the home and charged him with possession of 25 pounds of marijuana and stealing the electricity used to power the equipment used to help grow the marijuana.  The Florida Supreme Court invalidated the search by finding that Franky's sniff was an "unreasonable government intrusion into the sanctity of the home" and found that there was a greater expectation of privacy in a home than in a motor vehicle.  The Florida Supreme Court cited a 2001 United States Supreme Court decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia in which the court ruled that it was presumptive unreasonable for the authorities to use a heat detecting device to scan the inside of a home to determine whether marijuana was being grown inside the home. The issue in this case is whether the police can use a drug sniffing dog for a residence.

The case is Florida v. Jardines, 11-564.

The other dog drug sniffing case being considered today involves whether a drug sniffing dog can be used for a motor vehicle.  On June 24, 2006, a Florida police officer pulled over Clayton Harris' pickup truck near Bristol Florida.  The officer determined that Harris' registration was expired and saw an open can of beer in the cup holder. He noticed that Harris was breathing heavily and would not give permission to the officer to search his car. The officer then brought out Aldo, a drug sniffing German Shephard for a "free air sniff" and Aldo became excited and sat down when he approached the driver's door of Harris's truck.  The officer then searched Harris's truck and found 200 pseudoephedrine pills and 8,000 matches, which are the ingredients used to make methamphetamine.  The Florida Supreme Court threw out the search based on Aldo's drug sniffing because they found that the state failed to show the dog's reliability as a drug detector.  The Florida Supreme Court found that the state cannot just claim in a broad statement that because the dog has been trained as a drug sniffing dog that it is sufficiently reliable and qualified to detect drugs and that the state needs to produce evidence to the court to determine that it is reliable. The question in this case is how qualified does the dog have to be to conduct a valid drug sniff?

The case is Florida v. Harris, 11-817.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Tosses Wyoming Teens Life Sentence

The United States Supreme Court has thrown out the life sentence of a Wyoming teen convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.  The case involves Bear Cloud, who was 16 years old when he was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to straight life in prison, while two other teens who were also convicted of the murder were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.  Wyoming law mandates a sentence of life or life without parole for juvenile offenders convicted of murder.  Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court ruled that state laws which mandate life sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional. But while such laws are unconstitutional the Supreme Court did not invalidate these laws. The Court only required that the laws provide that courts need to consider alternatives to life in prison before imposing sentences to juveniles.  The Supreme Court sent Bear Cloud's case back to the Wyoming Supreme Court so it could consider what further steps should be taken.  The most likely outcome is that the case will be sent back to the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the level of maturity of the defendant, intelligence and potential for rehabilitation.  The trial court must consider the potential for rehabilitation.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

RECENT VICTORY - Aggravated UUW Against Security Guard Dismissed

Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapon charges against a licensed private security guard have been dismissed by Cook County prosecutors. The client was licensed by the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation and carried a TAN cared which gives him the right to carry afirearm when he is on duty. The client was pulled over by the police for not wearing his seat belt. The client told the officer that he was on his way home from his security job and was carrying a loaded firearm. The police arrested the client and charged him with Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon. We went to court with copies of the statute and the paperwork from the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation and convinced the prosecutor to dismiss the charges against our client.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.http://blog.legaldefenderspc.com/search/label/Recent%20Victory

Chicago Camera Vendor Under Investigation

The company that is providing red light cameras to Chicago is under investigation for bribery.  The company, Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., admitted that they paid the $910 luxury hotel bill for the city official in charge of its camera contract with the city and failed to inform the city for at least two years after they found out about the ethical breach.  The attorneys for Redflex say that the executive vice president who did this was sent to "anti-bribery" training but failed to inform the City of Chicago until reporters started snooping around and asking questions.  The implications are huge. The City of Chicago has brought in over $300 million in revenue from tickets issued by these cameras.  The Traffic Safety Coalition, a lobbying group in Springfield, which helped Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel convince the Illinois Legislature to allow the city to put speed cameras in speed zones and school zones is heavily funded by Redflex. Redflex is considered the leading bidder to get the contract to install and operate these new speed cameras.  According to Mayor Emanuel's budget for next year, he is counting on at least $30 million in revenue from these cameras.  Reporters and other independent investigators are discovering troubling links between Redflex and people with ties to the City.  Troubling ties between a deputy commissioner for the Chicago Department of Transportation and the executive from Redflex who is the liaison between Redflex and the City of Chicago.  The payment of the hotel bill involved the deputy commissioner.  Last year, the man who had been in charge of Redflex's contract with the City of Chicago retired and was immediately hired to a handsome salary by Redflex.  Redflex denies any impropriety and insists that their internal investigations failed to reveal that anything seriously wrong occurred.  We will keep an eye out on the relationship between Redflex and the City of Chicago.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295. 

Supreme Court Considers Mental Competence and Appeals

Last week the United States Supreme Court considered a case which will decide whether a federal judge has the authority to indefinitely stay a criminal defendant's appeal pending a determination that the inmate is mentally competent to assist their attorney in the appeal.  A defendant appealing a death sentence in federal court has a legal right to an attorney but there has never been a determination that the defendant has to be mentally fit to pursue that appeal.  This case involves Sean Carter, who was convicted in Ohio of the murder of his grandmother after he had been released from prison in 1997 and was sentenced to death.  The other case involves Ernest Gonzalez, who was convicted of first degree murder during a burglary in Arizona in 1999 and sentenced to death. The federal judge handling Carter's appeal stayed the appeal until he was mentally competent but the Court of Appeals changed the ruling to allow the part of the appeal that did not require his cooperation to proceed.  In Gonzalez's case the trial judge ruled that his appeal would not be delayed while the Court of Appeals stayed the appeal until he was ruled mentally competent.  The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on these cases, which involve a common question of whether a defendant must be mentally competent while an appeal is pursued on their behalf.  Court observers who were at the oral arguments seem to think that the majority of the Court is leaning towards ruling against the proposition that an inmate has to be mentally competent. The Court is expected to issue its ruling later this year.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Federal Judge Tosses Search In Spite of Strong Odor of Marijuana

A federal judge in Chicago has suppressed the search of a vehicle in spite of the officer's testimony that in addition to seeing a jar with a green leafy substance inside the vehicle, he also noticed a strong odor of marijuana. In spite of this evidence, the federal judge presiding over the Federal drug case ruled that the police did not have sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle and excluded the evidence recovered during that search, namely, 10 grams of marijuana inside a mason jar, $8,600 in cash and what the government was alleging were drug recipes and a drug ledger.  The underlying drug case against the defendant is still proceeding to trial. The government still has plenty of evidence to support their case.  They have the statement of the defendant, the testimony of a co-defendant, surveillance of the drug making operation, receipts of chemicals and equipment needed to grow and make the illegal drugs, recipes that detail how to carry out the drug manufacturing and emails sent to a co-defendant who didn't realize he was communicating with an undercover federal agent.  What is interesting about this case is how the attorney for the defendant was able to exclude the evidence recovered during the search of the vehicle.  After the police officer curbed the defendant's vehicle, he noticed a mason jar inside the vehicle that contained a "green leafy substance."  That jar has since been lost by the police, so the judge ruled that the jar could not be used to justify the search of the vehicle. The officer then testified that he noticed the strong odor of marijuana and proceeded to search the vehicle. The defendant had been inside a facility that was growing marijuana plants. The government was alleging that the strong odor of marijuana came from the clothes of the defendant. A federal agent even testified that he had been inside the same facility and that the strong odor of marijuana remained on his clothing after he left. The attorney for the defendant hired an expert witness who testified that in order for that strong odor of marijuana to be present, the marijuana plants must be a certain age and at a certain stage of growth to cause the smell to remain on clothing. The expert reviewed a video taken of the marijuana operation and testified that the plants were too young to cause the type of odor that the government was alleging was present at the time of the stop of the defendant's vehicle.  As a result, the judge ruled that the police did not have sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle and excluded all the evidence recovered during that search.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.