Ohio Supreme Court Issues Ruling On Cell Phones and 4th Amendment

On Tuesday, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that police have to obtain a search warrant before looking through the contents of a suspect's cell phone, unless their safety is at issue.  It looks like this is the first time this issue has ever been addressed by any state high court and has never been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The case involves Antwaun Smith who answered his cell phone after he was called by a police informant posing as a drug buyer.  After Smith was arrested the police seized his phone and looked through the call history and found the calls from the informant.  Smith was subsequently charged with possession of drugs and selling drugs.  The Court ruled that the police needed a warrant to search through the phone history on the cell phone and remanded the case back to the trial court for a trial without the illegally obtained call history on the cell phone.

From experience I have seen many cases in which police arrest a defendant and then look through the phone history and find a phone number that links the defendant to a crime.  This case would suggest that any evidence obtained by the warrant less search of the cell phone history would be inadmissible.  It will be interesting to see if this case has any lasting influence and is taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.

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

Supreme Court Considers Lawyers Bad Advice

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a very interesting case. In 2001 Jose Padilla plead guilty to drug charges in Kentucky. Padilla had lived in the United States for 40 years as a permanent resident. He asked his attorney if a plea of guilty to the drug charges would have any immigration consequences and was told that it wouldn't. Of course, Padilla's attorney was wrong and Padilla is now facing deportation. Padilla is claiming that the faulty advice by his attorney amounted to a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Padilla is arguing that defendants need to be informed of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea since Congress has mandated that a conviction of certain crimes can lead to deportation. During oral arguments Justice Scalia expressed concern of opening a Pandora's box. Scalia wanted to know what the extent of the possible consequences could be. For instance, would the attorney have to advise the client that a plea of guilty could affect their client's right to own a gun, or to obtain financial aid, or affect their ability to have visitation of their children in a divorce proceeding. Justice Kennedy suggested that judges warn defendants that there may be collateral consequences to their guilty plea when they are being admonished at the time of the plea.

We will keep an eye out for the court's decision and pass it along to you.

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

Felony Marijuana Charges Dismissed In Rolling Meadows

The other day I was able to get the Prosecutor's office to dismiss felony Possession of Marijuana charges against my client. My client had attended The Grateful Dead concert at Allstate Arena over the summer. An undercover Village of Rosemont police officer was doing surveillance in the parking lot of the Allstate Arena. In his police reports and at the preliminary hearing, he stated that he saw my client walking around the south end of the parking lot asking people if they wanted to buy "Molly." The officer said that "Molly" is slang for ecstasy. The officer testified at the preliminary hearing that he witnessed a drug transaction. He then called for assistance and about five other officers grabbed my client, put him face down on the parking lot and placed him under arrest for dealing drugs. They searched him and found over 50 grams of marijuana. The police never recovered any ecstasy from my client.

However, when pressed on whether he witnessed a drug transaction, the officer was forced to admit that he was not sure if what he saw was a drug transaction or a lawful transaction. I filed a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence arguing that the police lacked probable cause to arrest my client and that all the evidence seized after his unlawful arrest should be suppressed. To his credit, the prosecutor realized that my motion had merit and voluntarily agreed to dismiss the charges against my client on the eve of the hearing on my motion.

My client had been in jail since the arrest on a substantial bond. He is already on parole until November of 2010 for a Class 1 Felony drug charge. The dismissal of the charges means that my client is set free and does not have to worry about violating his parole.

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