Chicago Criminal Lawyer Blog

December 30, 2016

Resisting Arrest in Chicago

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

Nobody really likes to get arrested unless they are running away from an even greater threat to their lives. Therefore, the crime of resisting arrest in Chicago is not as uncommon as one might first assume. Currently this is considered to be a misdemeanor which is a follow-on offense that is separate from the original reason why the person is being arrested in the first place (see People vs Wishard). The law requires complete compliance with the law enforcement agencies unless there are some other compelling reasons such as a health emergency. Some over-zealous officers use this law in order to intimidate and then implicate citizens for purposes of blurring some other type of evidence. Quite often when an officer is caught up in dubious shooting episodes, he or she invariably come up with a defense to the effect that the shooting was justified because the suspect was resisting arrest.

Legal Implications and Strictures

Needless to say, an attorney is important in such cases, not only because he or she is able to challenge the version of events that is presented by the government agency, but also because an attorney can help the panicked suspect not implicate him or herself further. You would be amazed at how many criminal cases are effectively surrendered by the defendant on the first night in a cell precisely because he or she volunteers information through disorganized semi-confessions. One of the problems with the law relating to resisting arrest is the fact that it is so vaguely worded that it can encompass a wide range of behavior that would in some instances be reasonable and in others less reasonable. Similarly, the sentencing guidelines for the misdemeanor are extensive and varied. They include fines, probation, community service, and custody. The criminal record can provide some challenges in the future with respect to employment prospects.

December 28, 2016

Expungements and Sealing in Chicago: Possibilities and Limitations

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

For many offenders, the sentence handed down by the court is only the beginning of their punishment. In some ways a criminal record as mandated by the Criminal Identification Act is a much more difficult condition to deal with because it is permanent and insidious. Most people will make judgements about the capabilities and proclivities of an individual based on their criminal record. The people making these judgements are not party to the original case or any of the mitigating circumstances that could explain the person’s behavior at the time. More importantly, the criminal record leaves no room for real rehabilitation. All it does is to ensure that convicted people are forever consigned to the shadowy world of illicit activities. There have been many critiques of the criminal records system over the years including its role in increasing recidivism. However public opinion at the moment is ambivalent about the possibility of expunging records.

A Redemptive Scheme in Chicago

Chicago is one of the states that is exploring new ways of rehabilitating offenders. This is done through the process of sealing or expunging a criminal record for certain offenses, offenders, and circumstances. It is never a clean break because if the media has reported the case then all that is required is a Google search to get everything back up again. Many employers and potential spouses increasingly do those Google searches so either way the individual is stuck with their record unless they change name by deed poll. It is only the most experienced attorneys that are able to successfully get rid of a criminal record. Unfortunately most defendants are so traumatized by the criminal justice process that they end up giving up on any future hopes of redemption. They simply let the record lie as it is stated and resign themselves to a life on state benefits.

December 23, 2016

Order of Protection in Chicago: An Overview of its Legal and Practical Implications

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

The laws and rules relating to orders of protection in Chicago normally stem from domestic disputes. Typically, spouses seeking orders of protection are estranged or facing domestic violence. However, that does not mean that the law does not touch on other domesticated arrangements including the relationships between roommates and family members. This is a serious legal process that has significant financial implications for the party that is found to be at fault. It can even lead to a criminal record which filters down to job security, visitation rights, and custody disputes. That is why defendants in such cases will fight tooth and nail to ensure that an order of protection is not listed against them. Needless to say that the faults in writing the legislation, the police procedures as well as its wide implications has meant that it is open for abuse. This abuse is primarily associated with the application for protective orders based on false or incomplete information.

The Role of the Attorney in Getting Justice

Fact finding is an essential aspect of the protective order and will ultimately determine whether it is allowed or not. Therefore it is the responsibility of the defendant’s attorney to ensure that all relevant facts are considered. Some might be aggravating whilst others might be mitigating. The classic defense position is to maximize the mitigating issues whilst simultaneously minimizing the aggravating aspects. So far the courts have not been too vigilant in punishing those who cause them to issue unwarranted orders of protection. For example, there is sparse use of the perjury provisions of the law in these cases; partly due to the inherent belief within the criminal justice system that orders of protection lie more within the ambit of family law than criminal law.

December 21, 2016

Source of Bail Hearing in Chicago: The Privileged and Underprivileged

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

The criminal justice system has always been stacked unfavorably against the poor, not just in Chicago but across the globe. There is no better place to test this hypothesis than to consider the procedures and law relating to the source of bail hearing (see 725 ILCS 5). Defendants who are charged with drug-related offenses in Chicago will immediately be subjected to a bond hearing. This is designed to assess the money that is required to be posted in order to allow for release from custody pending the case conclusion. The District Attorneys (such as the one in Cook County) have developed a practice model in which the prosecutor requests the judge to hold a hearing about the source of bail funds prior to the bail being posted. Clearly, this is an attempt to ensure that tainted money is not channeled back through the court system. The source of finding may also provide the prosecutor with further evidence of the defendant’s criminality.

Tying the Defendant in Knots

Although the law was designed to capture hardened criminals with extensive networks of resources, the reality is that it merely makes life tough for the small time dealer who has to rely on terrified friends and family to post bail to a court that is potentially going to imprison them all. That is why an experienced defense attorney is important – to ensure that the procedures are applied correctly, consistently, and fairly. The starting point is understanding the fact that not all drug charges warrant a source of bail hearing. The entry point is that of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver or alternatively the manufacture of such a substance. Typically it is only the large quantity cases that will warrant the punitive aspects of the hearing.

December 16, 2016

Search and Seizure Procedures in Chicago

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

Broadly speaking, the law in Chicago gives the police power to search and seize items if and when they suspect that those items are relevant to the commission or investigation of a crime. However, some law enforcement agencies have abused this power resulting in the interventions of senior courts to determine what constitutes a legal search and seizure in Chicago. Defense attorneys may find themselves in a position where they are effectively prosecuting the law enforcement agencies for breaking the law. Typically, these complexities arise in the midst drug-related cases.

The Interplay Between Constitutional and Criminal Law

The Fourth Amendment has guaranteed Americans the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. However, that tends to focus more on the federal government overreach. Of course, there are those that push the law to its very limit by insisting that they are able to occupy public property without intervention from the state. That is why the law always includes a caveat of reasonableness which is open to interpretation and definition by the courts. The Fourth Amendment does not cover seizure by private individuals and therefore anyone that engages in this type of activity on their own authority is bound to encounter serious legal problems.

December 14, 2016

Forgery Law in Chicago

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

To the uninitiated, forgery in Chicago seems like a straightforward case. However, a closer examination of the law indicates that it is every bit as complicated as any constitutional issue that you can imagine. The fact that this law affects a large number of ordinary folks means that it is an important area for a defense attorney to be aware of. Certainly a lot of expertise and experience is required in order to successfully defend such cases. The consequences of failing to mount a successful defense can be serious, leading to between two and five years in custody (see Thomas M. Bartholomew for sentencing guidelines). On the other hand, a conviction is effectively an indicator of fraud and that could ruin career prospects in much more serious ways than even a murder conviction.

A Long Investigative Process

Normally forgery cases in Chicago will require a thorough investigation because the expectation from the police is that the typical defendant in these cases is highly sophisticated. To be fair, some forgeries are straightforward cases of misguided ambition. Examples include an altered bus pass or rail ticket. By contrast, there are some forgeries that have multiple layers, involving serious corporate fraud and other related consequences. The court will consider the chain of events from the first forgery to the eventual consequences on the victims when dealing with each case, particularly with regards to sentencing. Hiring a good defense attorney is essential, particularly when complex technicalities are highlighted and contested.

December 9, 2016

Sex Offender Registration in Chicago: Public Protection v. Rehabilitation of Offenders

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

Controversy has always surrounded the disclosure aspects of the sex offender registration program in Chicago. To some this is nothing more than a charter for vigilantes to attack those who have already served their time. To others 730 ILCS 152/115 represents a much needed public protection mechanism in an age in which sex offenders are getting more and more egregious in their crimes. In any case the law mandates that the State Police Department maintains a sex offender database which is readily accessible on the internet. Placement on the list is restricted to certain types of offenses. Crimes against children are high up on the agenda when it comes to the registration and disclosure process.

Confronting the Constitutional Implications of the Unpalatable

From one perspective, both 730 ILCS 150/2(B) and 730 ILCS 150/2(C) are tantamount to giving vigilantes a heads-up on which people and homes to attack. Sex offenders are already a vulnerable segment of convicted felons since they face being ostracized within and outside of prison. On the other hand, the public feels that they have a right to know about a category of offending that is highly susceptible to recidivism. The criteria for addition to the list is rather harsh on offenders and includes anyone who has been convicted of commission or attempted commission of a sex offense. Even those that are not guilty by reason of insanity are included. More controversially, the provisions for inclusion cover those who are subject to a finding that is not an acquittal at a hearing for an alleged commission or attempted commission of the offense.

December 7, 2016

Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle in Chicago

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

One of the most common crimes in Chicago is that of possession of a stolen vehicle. For a defense attorney such cases present certain peculiarities and challenges, but they also present opportunities to develop a deeper understanding of the law. Understandably, the defendant may try to claim a lack of knowledge about the origin of the car, but the investigating officers are normally well versed in the critical aspects of discovery. They will most certainly ensure that the mens rea is proved. The Actus Reus is normally a foregone conclusion since in most cases the suspect is caught red handed, usually in the commission of a traffic offense.

Implications for the Defendant

The indicative term of imprisonment is anywhere between three and seven years; quite a stiff sentence when one considers the fact that defendants who are involved in major violence and significant economic crimes might get a shorter term (see People vs Wright). The value of the car in question can be a mitigating or aggravating feature. For example, a car that is worth more than $10,000 will normally attract a Class 2 felony charge. Other aggravating features include the use of deception and threats. There are instances in which the offense is merely a conduit for more serious charges such as grand auto theft or even robbery. Therefore, it is imperative for the defending attorney to have as much information about the case as possible before it moves to arraignment and trial.

December 2, 2016

Public Indecency in Chicago: Maintaining Standards of Behavior

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

Even as the USA becomes more and more liberal when it comes to human sexuality, there are certain boundaries that are not to be crossed, such as outraging public decency as defined in the Chicago law. Indecent exposure is the nightmare waiting to happen for many commuters and park patrons. Although members of the public are generally aware that indecent exposure is socially unacceptable, they rarely comprehend the seriousness of the crime until they are experiencing it firsthand. In certain situations, this crime can become a felony with all the attendant consequences. There may be a few rare cases in which the police allow the offender to get away with a slap on the wrist, but those are not the norm. Not only do the sentencing guidelines include fines, they also make reference to long jail time.

Understanding Public Indecency Charges

The basic rules for public indecency charges are set out in 720 ILCS 5/11-30. There are a few things to note from the perspective of the defending attorney. First of all, the minimum age for criminal culpability in this context is 17 years, so age verification will be a key aspect of the defense strategy when appropriate. The conduct that falls under this law is varied, but there are a few important qualifiers and indicators of what is generally considered to be indecent exposure or public indecency in a prosecutorial context:

November 30, 2016

Obstruction of Justice in Chicago: Letting the Law Take its Course

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

The mantra to let the law take its course seems like a platitude when faced with a serious criminal investigation. Each party will have their own interests and will fight to protect them. For example the prosecutor will want the defendant to come across as the worst thing that has happened to the world. On the other hand, the defending attorney will want to portray his or her client as a hapless victim or a well-meaning interventionist. The public may want their pound of flesh from the trial, including the entertainment value. However, in the cool environment of a courtroom, it is the law that takes precedence. In this article we consider the offense of obstructing justice in Chicago as described in 720 ILCS 5/31-4.

Getting in the Way of the Investigation is a Crime in Chicago

The law on obstruction of justice in Chicago is borne out of a concern that defendants and their accomplices will try to make it difficult to undertake prosecutions. They can do this in a number of ways which involve omission and commission. In the worst case scenarios, there is witness intimidation which is an altogether different and sometimes even more serious offense in Chicago. Obstruction is a felony even if it encompasses quite a wide variety of behavior. This may include false testimony, concealment of essential information, and destroying or disguising physical evidence. Typically, there are two avenues opening for charging someone for these offenses. The first one is known as information while the second is known as indictment.