New Law Makes It Easy For Police to Eavesrop

Last week, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into law legislation that makes it easy for the police to secretly record people when investigating drug crimes.  Under current law, in order for the police to listen in to conversations they have to go to court and obtain a warrant from a judge.  This new law has removed this requirement.  Starting on January 1, 2013, police will be able to eavesdrop on a drug suspect's conversations by simply getting permission from the prosecutor.  Any recordings obtained can only be used in drug cases and in the prosecution of any violent felonies that occur during the commission of the drug crime, such as murder, assault, robbery or kidnapping.  As you can imagine, the measure has its supporters and critics.  Critics point to the erosion of a system of checks and balances that protects citizens from inappropriate conduct by the police.  Supporters point to the need to quickly obtain information on any suspected illegal drug activity.  It is important to note that any recordings obtained by this process can be used by the prosecutor and by the defendant and can also be used in any proceedings involving any disciplinary action against the police officers.  This measure is sure to be the subject of extensive court challenges in the future.

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.

Kane County Revising Court Security Policy

The Kane County Sheriff has announced that he will be revising his policy about bringing food into the Kane County Courthouse after discussing the matter with officials of the American Diabetes Association.  The policy change will allow flexibility for people with a medical condition while keeping food and drink out of the courtrooms.  The policy change was brought about by an incident which occurred in May of this year.  A complaining witness who had been subpoenaed to come to court to testify was stopped by courthouse security when he tried to bring a granola bar and 3 sodas into the courthouse.  This young man tried to explain to security that he was a diabetic and had to test his blood at least 12 times a day and was insulin dependent.  He was not allowed to bring the items into the courthouse even though he told security that if he had a diabetic reaction he probably would not have enough time to make it to the cafeteria or his car.  The man contacted the attorneys for the American Diabetes Association who contacted the Kane County Sheriff seeking an explanation.  The report that they have received a letter in response from the Sheriff indicating that he is working on changing the policy to allow people with diabetes and other medical conditions to be able to bring food into the courthouse.

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. 

Florida Supreme Court Upholds Draconian Drug Law

The Florida Supreme Court has upheld a controversial drug possession law which turns the United States Constitution on its head.  It has been a bedrock of criminal law and procedure that the prosecution is required to prove each and every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict a citizen of a crime.  Apparently, the Florida Supreme Court believes that the United States Constitution does not apply to the State of Florida.  In 2002 the Florida legislature passed a change to the Florida drug laws which shifted the burden of proof to criminal defendants to prove that the substances they were caught carrying was illegal.  At least 48 other states require that the state prove that the defendants knew that the substance they were carrying was illegal.  That's because the constitution requires that the state prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.  In 2011, United States District Judge Mary Scriven, struck down the Florida law when she ruled that it was "draconian and unreasonable."  Not to be swayed by the Federal Court, in a 5 to 2 decision the Florida Supreme Court upheld the law by disagreeing with Judge Scriven and finding that the state legislature was serious about cracking down on drug possession by eliminating the need for the state to prove that the defendants knew that what they were carrying was illegal.  Since there is a split between the Florida Supreme Court and the Federal District Court, it is likely that the final decision will have to be made by the United States Supreme Court.

Let me explain the significance of this misguided Florida law.  Let's say that you ask your friend for a Tylenol to relieve a headache or some back pain.  Instead of a Tylenol, your friend gives you a prescription pill, like hydrocodone or Vicodin and you get pulled over by a police officer for speeding and the officer finds the pill on your car seat.  Instead of forcing the state to prove that you knew that this was a Vicodin or hydrocodone, you would have to prove that you did not know that it was a Vicodin or hydrodone.  Good luck trying to get your friend to come to court and admit that he illegally gave you a powerful prescription drug.  This is from the same state that gave us Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman and stand your ground.

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.

City Council To Bar Some People With Misdemeanors From Owning a Gun

In response to a ruling by a Federal District Court judge which struck down Chicago's Gun Ordinance as being vague and unconstitutional, the Chicago City Council is trying to rewrite Chicago's Gun Ordinance.  Under the current Gun Ordinance, anyone convicted of a misdemeanor gun possession is barred from owning a gun.  Yesterday, the City Council's Public Safety Committee approved a change to the ordinance which would bar certain people convicted of certain violent misdemeanors from owning a gun for five years.  The measure was passed by the Committee without any debate or discussion.  The measure is expected to go before the entire Chicago City Council or a vote on Wednesday.  

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.

Troubling Decision Out Of Washington State

The Washington State Court of Appeals has issued a highly troubling decision which should cause great concern to everyone concerned about their privacy rights when it comes to their smartphone.  The police had arrested Daniel Lee for possession of drugs.  A police officer seized Lee's iPhone and started looking through Lee's text messages.  He noticed a suspicious text message from someone named "Z-Jon."  The officer sent a message to Z-Jon asking if he "needed more" and received a response in slang and agreed to meet up with the officer who was posing as Lee.  That meeting led to the arrest of Jonathan Roden who was eventually convicted of attempted possession of drugs.  Roden appealed his conviction arguing that the Washington Privacy Act requires that the police get consent before intercepting a private communication transmitted by a phone.  The Washington Court of appeals disagreed with Roden and held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a text message sent because it is stored on a phone and can be viewed by anyone.  The majority equated text message with voice messages left on an answering machine which can be overheard by anyone.  The dissent strongly disagreed with the majority and warned that this ruling could put any phone in danger of being searched without a warrant.  So based on this decision, by simply possessing someones phone, a police officer is deemed to have consent to search the phone without anyone's permission and without a warrant.  This ruling throws the 4th Amendment out the door when it comes to your smartphone.  So under the majority's reasoning, any electronic communication that has a traceable electronic trail will not be protected because the mere sending of the communication means that the sender consented to the search.  Highly troubling.

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 Bars Mandatory Life Sentences for Juveniles

In a 5 to 4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that automatically sentencing juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of parole violates the Constitutions prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.  On September 8, 2011 we reported that the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles convicted of first degree murder may be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.  In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for juveniles convicted of murder was unconstitutional and in 2010 ruled that sentencing a juvenile to life in prison for a non-violent offense was unconstitutional.  On March 19, 2012, we reported that the Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments on the case that was decided yesterday.  While the court did not foreclosure the possibility of a juvenile being sentenced to life in prison, it found that automatically sentencing a juvenile to life in prison, robbed the court of the ability to take all possible mitigating factor into consideration the juveniles life and their involvement in the crime before sentencing them to life in prison.  The majority opinion was written by Justice Elena Kagan.  She stated that juveniles should not be punishment as harshly as adults because they are less culpable for their crimes than adults and have a greater chance of rehabilitation.  In addition, the juvenile's character has not yet fully formed.  Throughout the country, roughly 2,500 individuals are in prison for life without parole for crimes they committed before they turned 18.  Out of those, roughly 2,000 were sentenced to life in prison under a mandatory sentencing statute.  So the impact of this decision will be of some consequence.

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.

What is Happening in Chicago?

The number of murders in Chicago from a year ago have increased 38%.  As of June 17, 240 murders have occurred in Chicago in 2012, 66 more murders than during the same period in 2011.  Other large cities, like New York and Los Angeles are either seeing their murder rates hold steady or decline.  In addition, other crimes in Chicago are actually on the decline.  Rapes, robberies, burglaries, and auto thefts have actually declined about 10 percent over a year ago.  Mayor Rahm Emmanuel is making the rising murder rate a priority in his administration.  He usually begins his day by reviewing reports about violence throughout the city overnight.  Emmanuel attributes the rising murder rate to the prevalence of street gangs and the ready availability of guns.  While the majority of the murders have occurred in the city's most gang infested neighborhoods, even some of the most affluent neighborhoods have been touched by the rising number of murders.  Experts are not ready to make any conclusions regarding the cause of the rising murder rate.  Some experts point to the city budget cuts which have left a shortfall in the number of police officers on the street.  Others point to the unusually warm summer which could explain the rise in violence.  

The warm hot summer has just begun and the streets of Chicago look like they will be particularly violent this summer.

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.