Drug Crimes

June 1, 2016

Inter-State Marijuana Shipments

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

The legalization of recreational marijuana in several states over the last few years has created a business opportunity that some people are finding difficult to resist. Non-commercial cultivators in states like Colorado that have legalized recreational marijuana have little legal regulation, and even less oversight, and with prices for their product being between 300% to 500% higher in states where the possession and use of marijuana for recreational purposes is still illegal, there is a huge incentive for these gray-area cultivators to export their crops across state lines.

Case Study

Illinois resident Ryan Bailey was arrested on January 7 by Chicago police after receiving a seven pound package of marijuana sent to him from a nonexistent shipping company in Aurora Colorado. Before moving to Chicago, Mr. Bailey had lived in Colorado, where he and his wife had run both a growing facility and dispensary where he got in legal trouble for running a much larger operation than was allowed without commercial permits. Prior to his January 7th arrest, Mr. Bailey was arrested previously when the Chicago police department raided his home in Northwest Chicago and found over 40 pounds of marijuana. In both cases the raids were set in motion by UPS employees who reported delivering packages that smelled strongly of marijuana.

December 23, 2015

Are You Being Charged with Possession or Delivery of Ecstasy in Chicago?

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Ecstasy, increasingly referred to as Molly, is the street name for the drug MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine). Whatever you call it, Ecstasy is a synthetic and psychoactive drug, with similarities to stimulants like amphetamine and with similarities to hallucinogens, like mescaline. Those who take it report experiencing euphoria, increased energy, warmth and empathy to others, and distorted time and sensory perception.

It is against the law in Illinois to be in possession of any amount of Ecstasy, as it has a high potential for abuse with no accepted medical use in Illinois, so it is classified as a Schedule 1 drug. Criminal penalties for the possession of Ecstasy are governed by the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, but possessing any amount of ecstasy at all is a felony.

Penalties for Possession of Ecstasy

December 16, 2015

Possession of Cocaine in Chicago

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

It is against the law in Illinois to possess any amount of cocaine at all. Cocaine, a stimulant derived from the coca plant, is classified as a Schedule I drug in Illinois. The penalties for the possession of cocaine are set out in the Illinois Controlled Substances Act at 720 ILCS 570/1 et seq.

Illinois Drug Schedule and Penalties

Illinois classifies illegal drugs into different categories, called schedules. The penalties for drug possession depend on which schedule the drug is classified in. There are five different schedules, with Schedule I being street drugs with the highest potential for abuse and Schedule V being prescription drugs with the lowest potential for abuse. Cocaine is classified as a Schedule I drug, which carries the harshest penalties given under Illinois law.

December 9, 2015

Chicago’s Heroin Epidemic and Overdose Crisis

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

In October of this year, there were more than 100 heroin overdoses in Chicago, including 74 in a 72 hour period. Police blame one batch of heroin that swept through Chicago’s West Side, which was laced with the drug fentanyl, a powerful painkiller. Most of the users who overdosed obtained the heroin from the same two sources, which is what led authorities to determine that a single batch was to blame for all of the overdoses. Those who overdosed failed to respond to Narcan, the drug used in emergency rooms throughout the United States to reverse the effects of a heroin overdose. Not until emergency room doctors doubled and tripled the Narcan amounts were they able to save the lives of the people who overdosed.

Chicago Police are Cracking Down on the Heroin Problem

Heroin use has been on the upswing in Cook County. Throughout the United States, heroin overdoses have quadrupled in the past ten years. Between 2007 and 2013, heroin use in the United States has doubled, and many experts believe no city has been harder hit than Chicago.

November 25, 2015

The Most Common Defenses to Drug Crimes

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Whether you are facing charges of possession of a controlled substance or illicit drug, or you have been charged with trafficking with the intent to sell or distribute illegal drugs, there are many legal defenses available to you. Depending on which, if any, is applicable, you can greatly reduce the severity of your sentence, especially if it is your first offense. Some of the key defenses are discussed here.

Denial of Ownership

Denying ownership is the common defense put forth in a drug crime and is often quite successful. You should not claim ownership of any drugs if you are searched or your premises are searched, or if you are in a place the police raid and drugs are found; instead you should exercise your right to remain silent and immediately contact an attorney.

November 13, 2015

The Heroin Crisis Act

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Illinois is ahead of much of the country on taking an innovative approach to dealing with heroin addiction with the passage of The Heroin Crisis Act (The Act). The Act follows the lead of the Chief of Police in Gloucester, MA, and instead of treating people charged with heroin possession as criminals, offers treatment for their addiction.

The Act increases funding for drug education, as well. It also establishes a prescription drug refund program and expands the coverage of rehabilitation programs to be included under Medicaid. The law requires all pharmacies to dispense an opioid overdose antidote like naloxone to drug users and their loved ones without discrimination, and firemen, police officers, and school nurses must now carry the drug and receive training on how to administer the drug in the appropriate manner. Naloxone is a drug that effectively reverses the effects of a heroin overdose and saves lives.

The Law

October 16, 2015

Changing Marijuana Laws in Illinois

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Throughout the United States, a remarkable change of heart and mind about the use of marijuana is in progress, and Illinois has joined in, albeit with some resistance. There are currently 38 states with some type of medical marijuana program, 16 states that have decriminalized smaller amounts of marijuana possession, and two states that have legalized the recreational use of cannabis.

In 2016, two more states will legalize recreational marijuana, and Illinois is poised to join the 16 other states that have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana. As it now stands, however, marijuana possession remains a crime in the state of Illinois (even though the City of Chicago decriminalized marijuana on its own in 2012 and moved to a ticketing system). While the marijuana laws will most likely change in the near future, you still should be aware of the current laws governing possession of cannabis.

Marijuana Laws in Illinois

June 12, 2015

Chicago Drug Crimes Conviction Can Lead to Deportation

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

If you are convicted of a Chicago drug crime, whether misdemeanor or felony, you face a lengthy prison sentence and hefty fines. If you are not an American citizen, whether an illegal immigrant or a lawful permanent resident, you also face the possibility of being deported.

Deportation for Drug Crimes Conviction

The United States federal code allows for the deportation of any alien convicted of conspiracy to violate, attempted violation or violation of a state controlled substance law (other than a single offense of possession of less than 30 grams of personal use marijuana) that relates to a federally banned substance. The federal code outlines specific substances that are considered controlled substances that could lead to deportation.

This is an important distinction in the law. State and federal law are not always in lock-step regarding what is considered a controlled substance. If an illegal immigrant is convicted of a drug crime under state law, and the controlled substance is not included under the federal controlled substance list, the illegal immigrant is not eligible for deportation.

The United States Supreme Court recently made another distinction under the law. In order to be a deportable offense, the underlying charge must specifically state the controlled substance banned under federal law. In Mellouli v. Lynch, the defendant was convicted of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. The paraphernalia in this case was a sock that contained four unnamed pills. Neither the initial charge nor the ultimate plea agreement made specific reference to the controlled substance that was in the defendant’s possession at the time of arrest.

The court ruled that in order to trigger the deportation law, it must be made clear at some point what federally banned controlled substance the defendant had in his possession. Laws must be taken at face value, meaning when the court is interpreting a vague or otherwise ambiguous law, it cannot consider what it thinks the drafters of the law meant. They may only be guided by the literal letter of the law.

Based on prior rulings, the court ruled that they must take the conviction at face value and could not be held responsible for looking into the underlying facts. Thus, police and forensic reports may have indicated what pills were in the defendant’s sock, and reading those reports would have allowed the court to check the federal controlled substance law to see if the drug was included. But that is the responsibility of the police and prosecutor, not the court. Without the substance named, the court ruled the defendant could not be deported.

In terms of defense of drug crimes, the case seemingly has little to no impact on the role of a criminal defense attorney. Yet the case is likely to make prosecutors look more closely at charging documents and plea agreements to ensure that all drug crimes cases are linked to federally banned substances, to ensure that the immigration department has an easier path to deportation, should it choose that option. In that sense, it makes it that much more important to retain the services of an experienced Chicago drug crimes attorney to help win an acquittal or dismissal of all charges, so that deportation is not an option.

May 8, 2015

Decriminalization of Marijuana One Step Closer in Illinois

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

The Illinois House of Representatives passed a bill that would decriminalize possession of marijuana. Passage comes on the heels of a recent announcement made by Cook County state’s attorney Anita Alvarez that her office will no longer prosecute minor pot cases. The bill must pass the Senate before being transmitted to the governor’s desk for signature.

Low-level Possession of Marijuana Crimes in Illinois

If passed by the Senate and ultimately signed in to law by Governor Rauner, the law would not only decriminalize possession of low-levels of marijuana, but would create consistency between state law and public ordinances.

Current Illinois law classifies possession of between 2.5 and 30 grams of marijuana as a Class A, B or C misdemeanor, depending on the amount the defendant possessed at the time of arrest. A second or higher arrest for possession being is upgraded to a Class 4 felony. Penalties for conviction range from 30 up to one year in jail and fines ranging from $1,500 to $2,500.

Under the proposed law, Chicago residents could legally possess up to 25 grams of marijuana, and the penalty for being caught in possession would be no worse than a traffic ticket – no jail time, and a maximum $125 fine.

The law is addressed at growing recognition that prosecution for low-level misdemeanor cases is a waste of the court’s already stretched and limited resources and serves no real purpose, as the majority of offenders are non-violent, recreational users who pose no threat to the public. But it will also make penalties for misdemeanor possession crimes uniform across the state.

Under the present system, a person in any city or county across the state can be arrested for possession of 5 grams of marijuana. But whether or not that person is prosecuted depends on where the arrest was made.

If the arrest is made in Chicago, as of now there will be no prosecution for misdemeanor possession. According to the Cook County state’s attorney’s office, all such cases will be dismissed. Those arrested and charged with a Class 4 felony in Cook County will be diverted to an alternative program that seeks to rehabilitate chronic drug abusers, rather than throw them in prison where they will receive little to no treatment for their addiction.

The same person arrested in another city, however, for possession of 5 grams of marijuana could be placed in jail for up to 30 days and face a fine of $1,500. And if he is a repeat offender, whereas the city of Chicago would offer him treatment in an effort to break the cycle of addiction, another city could place him in jail for up to a year, only to have him be released and fall right back into the cycle.

In order to be effective laws must be applied uniformly. And basic fairness requires that a person should not be subject to criminal punishment for engaging in behavior in one city that is perfectly legal in the next. Continue reading

January 6, 2015

DuPage County Woman Charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Villa Nova woman was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance after accepting delivery of almost 700 Xanax pills. The arrest was made through the combined efforts of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Postal Service and the DuPage County Sheriff’s Office.

DuPage Possession of a Controlled Substance

Drug crimes require an aggressive defense, and that defense must begin immediately. In any criminal case, there are certain procedures law enforcement must follow in order to ensure that each defendant is afford a fair trial. One of the most important is the fundamental right against unlawful searches and seizures, and law enforcement’s motivation and justification for initiating a search is the most important aspect of any drug crimes defense.

In this case, there are a number of concerns regarding the arrest and subsequent search of the defendant’s residence.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol intercepted a package addressed to the defendant containing the Xanax. Undercover officers then proceeded to deliver the package to the defendant’s home and, when she accepted it, immediately arrested her for possession of a controlled substance. It is unclear whether the defendant did any more than simply accept the package; if that is all she did, it is very alarming that she was promptly arrested without any further action on her part. Just because the package was addressed to her does not mean she knew it contained 700 Xanax pills and, in order to be charged with possession, the defendant’s possession must have been knowing. A roommate, friend or family member could have arranged for it to be delivered to her house for their own personal use, and simply addressed it to her so she could accept it. The defendant could not be said to be in possession of the Xanax if she had no idea what was in the package; in such a case, she would have just been in possession of a package delivered to her.

There is, of course, also the possibility that she had a valid prescription for the pills and got them filled out of the U.S. because she had no health insurance and it was cheaper to purchase them elsewhere than have the prescription filled at a local pharmacy.

Next is the search of defendant and her home. Police are able to conduct a search incident to arrest, without the need to first obtain a search warrant. The purpose of the search is to ensure officer safety and prevent the destruction of evidence. However, a search incident to arrest is limited, generally to an area within the defendant’s reach. Since the defendant accepted the package at her front door, law enforcement was legally permitted to search that area within her immediate reach; a search of the entire residence seems beyond the scope of her reach.

However, in this instance it appears that the defendant’s home was searched pursuant to a search warrant. A thorough review of the search warrant, as well as the evidence provided to the judge who issued the warrant, is very important. As I said, the fact that the pills were addressed to the defendant is not enough to prove that she knew what was in the package or had in any way arranged for it to be delivered to her. Because the package could have been sent, unbeknownst to her, by a friend, family member or roommate who planned to pick it up after it had been delivered, the fact that the police was able to get a search warrant is suspect. They could have delivered the package and conducted surveillance, or even gotten a warrant to tap her phone for a limited time to see if she made any calls regarding the pills, before being issued a warrant to search her home.

The circumstances surrounding law enforcement’s acquisition of the search warrant and their immediate arrest of the defendant would all need to be thoroughly examined in order to determine whether police violated the defendant’s right to be free from unlawful search and seizures.