California High Court Ruling Creates Possible Supreme Court Review

The California Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer can look through the cell phone of someone that has been lawfully placed under arrest.  A Ventura County deputy conducted a warrantless search of the text messages of a man he had arrested for participating in a drug deal.  In a 5 to 2 ruling the California Supreme Court ruled that the police can search through items found on individuals that are arrested.  The ruling has the effect of extending the loss of privacy upon arrest beyond a persons body to include their personal property.  Gregory Diaz was arrested in 2007.  The detective that arrested him took Diaz's phone out of his pocket when he was arrested.  About 90 minutes after he was arrested, a deputy searched through Diaz's text messages and discovered evidence that Diaz was involved in the drug deal.  Diaz eventually pleaded guilty to the drug charges and was sentenced to probation.  However, in 2007, a Federal District Court Judge ruled that police need to have a search warrant in order to search through the text messages on a cell phone and the Ohio Supreme Court also ruled that police need a search warrant to look through the text messages on a cell phone.  The split opinions may cause the United States Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue and and issue a ruling.  We will keep an eye out on whether this case makes it to the 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 Agrees To Hear Federal Sentencing Case

Last Monday, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving the application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.  The case involves an inmate out of Pennsylvania, Percy Dillon.  He was originally sentenced to 322 months in prison on crack drug charges and firearm charges.  After the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines should be advisory rather than mandatory, he was re sentenced to 270 months in prison.  However, reviewing courts did not use the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, which would have lowered Dillon's sentence even more.  The central question in this case will be whether judges have to follow strict sentencing guidelines at sentence modification hearings.  Arguments will be heard next year.

The case is Dillon v. United States, 09-6338.

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 Rules on Right to Bear Arms

The Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 decision, held that the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias. Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority of the Supreme Court said that “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home” is unconstitutional.

The significance of the decision is that the Supreme Court for the first time acknowledged that that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that belongs to the people and not just the States. The case struck down a Washington DC law that prohibited ownership of handguns. The decision is going to have a significant impact in places such as Chicago, San Francisco and other cities that have hand gun prohibitions.

However, the Court did state that "the decision does not mean, for instance, that laws against carrying concealed weapons are to be swept aside" (or) . . ."the court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Unfortunately the Court did not give guidance as what are reasonable restrictions are constitutional. However, the Court acknowledged that one decision alone can not address all of the issues associated with gun control. It appears that there will much more case law in the coming future to iron out what restrictions are and are not constitutional.

Although the decision and the dissent was 157 pages long, the Court placed a great deal of emphasis on the fact that hand guns are used by Americans to defend themselves and their families in their homes and the 2nd amendment in no way limits the right to self protection and self-preservation.

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.

Drug Charges Dismissed

Chicago criminal defense attorney, John Ioakimidis, successfully negotiated with the prosecutor to get charges for Possession of Drug Paraphernalia dismissed at the Skokie courthouse against a 21 year old college student. The dismissal of the charges was significant because the client is on Court supervision on prior cases and a conviction would likely have violated her supervision exposing the client to potential jail time if she had violated her probation.


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 Drug Charges Dismissed at Preliminary Hearing

Chicago criminal defense attorney, John Ioakimidis, secured a dismissal of drug charges at the Preliminary Hearing after he was able to show the court that there was no probable cause to believe that his client had committed a crime.

The dismissal was significant because the the client had been arrested for another felony drug case while still on the first case. That second case was also ultimately dismissed.

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.

Prostitution Charges Dropped

Chicago criminal defense attorney, John Ioakimidis, won a dismissal of a prostitution charge and related traffic offenses after a hearing pursuant to a Motion to Quash Arrest and the courthouse at Grand and Central.

Chicago criminal defense attorney, John Ioakimidis argued that the police did not have probable cause to arrest his client. After John Ioakimidis cross examined the arresting officer, the judge agreed with John Ioakimidis and the case was dismissed. The prosecutor wanted a conviction because the client was on probation for a felony.

A few days later, Chicago criminal defense attorney, John Ioakimidis, negotiated the dismissal of the same client's other pending prostitution case.

After a few days, the Violation of Probation was dismissed. Three dismissals in about 45 days! Needless to say, this was a very satisfied client.

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.

Drug Possession Charges Dismissed at Preliminary Hearing

Chicago criminal defense attorney, James Dimeas, obtained a dismissal of all felony drug possession charges at a preliminary hearing held at Harrison and Kedzie. The police officer that arrested Chicago criminal defense attorney, James Dimeas's client testified that he was patroling a "high narcotics area" when he observed the client engage in what the officer described as a "hand to hand transaction." The officer exited his vehicle and approached the client. As he approached the client he saw the client place an item in his mouth. The officer restrained the client and removed the object from his mouth. The item recovered from the client's mouth contained illegal drugs. Under cross examination by Chicago criminal defense attorney, James Dimeas, the police officer admitted that he did not observe the client hand anything to the other individual nor did he observe the other individual hand anything to the other individual. Chicago criminal defense attorney James Dimeas argued that the officer lacked any "specific articulable facts" to support probable cause to even approach the client and detain him for the purposes of retrieving the object from his mouth. The Court agreed with Chicago criminal attorney, James Dimeas, and dismissed the drug charges against the client.

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 Drug Possession Charges Dismissed!

Felony Drug Possession Charges were dismissed at the Maywood Courthouse after Chicago criminal defense attorney James Dimeas won a Motion to Suppress after convincing the Court that the police did not have probable cause to arrest his client. The client was pulled over by the Chicago police after he was observed committing a minor traffic violation. As the police were issuing a traffic ticket, they observed a scale, plastic bags and baking soda on the rear seat of the client's vehicle. The Chicago police officers ordered the client to exit the vehicle and searched him and his vehicle. They did not find any illegal drugs on the client or in his vehicle. Nonetheless, they placed the client under arrest and put him in the back of the squad car. As the Chicago police were transporting the client to the police station they saw him moving around in a suspicious manner on the back seat. After they arrived at the police station they removed him from the back seat and took him into the police station. They searched the back of the squad car and found a bag containing illegal drugs in the rear seat of the squad car and charged him with Possession of a Controlled Substance.

Chicago criminal defense attorney James Dimeas filed a Motion to Suppress claiming that the police violated his client's constitutional rights by arresting him without any probable cause. After extensive cross examination by Chicago criminal defense attorney James Dimeas of the Chicago police officers who arrested his client, the court agreed with Chicago criminal defense attorney James Dimeas and ruled that the police did not have probable cause to arrest him. Therefore, any evidence obtained after he was illegally arrested could not be used by the state.

As a result of the victory by Chicago criminal defense attorney James Dimeas, the prosecutor was forced to dismiss the charges and the client won the case.

Prior to the hearing on the motion to suppress the state had offered the client 18 months imprisonment due to his extensive felony background.

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

Drug Charges Dismissed - Effective Cross Examination

At Grand and Central, aggressive cross examination of the police by Chicago criminal defense attorney John Ioakimidis, of Legal Defenders, PC., resulted in a finding of no probable cause and the case was dismissed. The client was originally charged with Possession with Intent to Deliver.

The police arrested our client after he fit a description of a person who was shooting a gun. The police then conducted a search of our client's alleged residence and found, in a shoe box, more than 40 grams of marijuana, baggies, scales and our client's ID's.

Our client was filled with joy knowing that he walked into Court facing serious felony charges and walked out a free man.

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.

Federal Drug Sentencing Supreme Court Decision

On December 10, the United States Supreme Court issued a significant ruling affecting thousands of defendants convicted of possessing and selling crack cocaine. Defendants convicted of violating Federal criminal laws are subject to being sentenced according to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are a set of sentencing rules and ranges compiled by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Federal Judges are required to adhere closely to the sentencing guidelines when sentencing defendants in Federal criminal cases. For many years, judges and lawyers have complained that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are unfair in that they punish defendants convicted of crimes involving crack much more severely than defendants with powder cocaine. The result has been a racial disparity. An example of the unfairness in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is that the mandatory minimum sentence for an amount of crack was the same as for 100 times that amount of powder cocaine. This was commonly known as the 100:1 drug ratio. The racial disparity occurred because roughly 85% of defendants convicted of crack offenses are black whereas most defendants convicted of powder cocaine offenses are white.

The Supreme Court finally agreed with this problem with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and ruled that Federal Judges could depart from the Guidelines and sentence defendants more fairly when dealing with crack cocaine. A few days later, the U.S. Sentencing Commission met and changed the Federal Sentencing Guidelines reducing the sentences of defendants convicted of crack offenses. The change is retroactive, meaning that after March 2008, roughly 20,000 defendants convicted of offenses involving crack will be able to petition their sentencing Judge to reduce their sentence. There are estimates that the average defendant will be able to have their sentence reduced by 27 months.

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.