Chicago Criminal Lawyer Blog

August 27, 2013

Chicago Drug Crimes – Should Chicago Implement the “Stop, Question and Frisk” NYPD Policy?

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

Have you ever been stopped by the Chicago Police for no apparent reason and are now facing Chicago drug charges? You can most likely relate to the following recent story out of New York City.

Following a $14,000 March, 2013 settlement to a Brooklyn man who claimed he was illegally stopped and frisked pursuant to the controversial “stop, question and frisk” policy in effect by New York City—a federal judge ruled on August 12^th that the policy was both unconstitutional as well as racially discriminatory. As noted in the decision handed down by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, (Floyd v. City of New York), the complaints that have been received by several Chicago drug defendants regarding the policy have merit as well. Specifically, a year before the lawsuit and Judge Scheindlin’s decision, the New York City Council introduced legislation known as the Community Safety Act. This legislation first established an independent inspector general to review current police policy and practice regarding the stop and frisk issue. Secondly, the Act enforced a current anti-profiling law and expanded the categories of those protected from such profiling. This has everything to do with violations of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution regarding search and seizure.

New York City Council and Mayor Bloomberg Carry on the Battle

Following the above-mentioned lawsuit, the City Council voted on the Community Safety Act in June. While the Act passed through the Council nearly unanimously, Mayor Bloomberg vetoed the legislation in July, stating “This is a fight to defend your life and your kids’ lives…” Bloomberg has been vocal in stating that any extra departmental oversight prevents officers from effectively doing their jobs and places New York citizens in harm’s way. Many citizens of New York would disagree with the Mayor’s assessment. Keeshan Harley, an 18-year old young black man from Brooklyn has been stopped by the NYPD almost 150 times “without proper cause or fair reasoning,” under the NYPD stop and frisk policy.

Stop and Frisk Comes to a Halt

Apparently, many New Yorkers side with the City Council as on August 22^nd, the era of unchecked stop-and-frisks by the NYPD ended when Bloomberg’s veto was overridden. Bloomberg vows to keep fighting the issue, claiming the Act a “dangerous piece of legislation.” Bloomberg’s opinion may have merit as well—those bent on committing crimes in New York City seem to have gotten the “memo” loud and clear following the Council’s decision. One police source claimed he would start carrying his gun again and that once the number of stops decreased the number of crimes would skyrocket. With police officers under threat of a lawsuit any time a suspect could potentially claim profiling, it is believed that good officers will simply “look the other way,” rather than risk their jobs and their pensions.

How the New York Stop and Frisk Could Affect Chicago

A Bronx police officer commented “Welcome to Chicago,” following the NY Council’s veto, insinuating that the crime rate of New York City would soon reach that of Chicago once police officers stopped taking advantage of “stop, question and frisk.” A spokesman for the Chicago Police Department responded to the barb, saying “We don’t engage in racial profiling.” Adam Collins went on to say that there was significantly less crime, fewer shootings and fewer murders in 2012 than any other year since 1965—and without imposing on citizen’s rights. Chicago does have a version of stop and frisk known as “contact cards.”

This allows police to stop an individual, ask for name, phone number and the disclosure of any tattoos however the officer may not make physical contact without probable cause. Nevertheless, Chicago police are not completely exempt from racial profiling. Four interns for Rainbow Push have accused Chicago police of racial profiling as the four young black men, ranging from 19-21, were stopped and handcuffed as they were walking toward a bus stop. One of the young men attends Chicago State University and is seeking a degree in criminal justice. The young men suspect the police were looking for guns—although no weapons were found during a pat-down. Police officials defend the actions of the officers stating the area is well-known for gang violence and that one of the young men refused to remove his hands from his pockets when asked. Continue reading

August 24, 2013

When the Need to Confess Overcomes Concerns about Getting Caught

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

Quite often, unfortunately, defendants facing Chicago drug charges or Chicago violent crimes charges feel the need to boast of the exploits.

As most of us are aware, people confess to many things on Facebook. Secret loves, bad habits, hidden longings; it appears that nowadays, nothing is too private or personal to appear on social media. While some may consider such confessions to be tacky—or at the very least, in poor taste—a Florida man recently went a step further by posting a photograph of the young wife he had just murdered, along with a confession—of sorts. While most Americans are long-past the point of being shocked by the daily news, this latest bid for attention has startled even the most cynical.

Derek Medina, a South Miami resident, could possibly have benefitted from taking his own website a bit more seriously. That website, called EmotionalWriter.com, markets Medina’s self-help books on effective communication and marriage counseling tips. A little over a week ago, Medina was apparently engaged in a verbal dispute with his 26-year old wife, Jennifer Alfonso. According to Medina, he pointed a gun at his wife, at which point she walked away, returning minutes later to inform her husband she was leaving. Medina then confronted his wife who reacted by “punching” him. Medina once again pointed his firearm at his wife, who responded by grabbing a kitchen knife. As Medina attempted to take the knife from Alfonso, she once again began hitting him, at which point he fired multiple shots from close range directly into her body.

Medina then took photos of his wife’s dead body and wrote a note which stated “I’m going to prison or death sentence for killing my wife love you guys miss you guys take care Facebook people you will see me in the news my wife was punching me and I am not going to stand anymore with the abuse so I did what I did I hope u understand me.” The photo and the note were then posted on Medina’s Facebook account. The image was online for approximately five hours before Facebook employees removed the photo and disabled both Medina’s FB page as well as his wife’s. Even more bizarre, the couple’s ten-year old daughter was in the house at the time, although she was reported to be “unharmed.”

If you wonder why on earth anyone would post photos of their murdered wife it is likely you are not alone. Psychologists attribute this need to (over) share with the poster’s need to feel important or powerful. Unfortunately, Medina is not alone in his quest for attention. A 2011 rape of a 15-year-old girl was discovered after the four teens allegedly responsible shared a photo of her online and through text messages. Again in 2011, a Pennsylvania teen pled guilty to raping an inebriated 15-year-old girl then posted a message on Facebook asking for a hit man to kill the girl. As a result of these types of stories, Facebook has been used to catch those Floridians suspected of illicit behavior with increasing regularity, becoming a tool for identifying criminal behavior and catching those responsible for crimes ranging from theft to poaching.

Of course, criminals have been publicly confessing long before Facebook came into being. Jailhouse confessions and barroom braggarts are rife in the world of criminal defense. Social media has simply given those people a different kind of platform, allowing them to share their misdeeds and brag about being bad. While millions of people use social media in a totally healthy manner every day, for others the ability to communicate with others without seeing or hearing them makes it harder to remember that actions come with consequences. In fact, following his Facebook posting, Derek Medina drove to see his family, telling them what he had done, then turned himself in to the police. Medina is currently being held without bond under preliminary charges of first degree murder. Continue reading

August 23, 2013

Chicago Aggravated Robbery News – When Pointing a Water Gun at Someone Can Result in Charges of Aggravated Robbery

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

Many of my clients have faced Chicago aggravated robbery charges. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the element of aggravated or armed robbery consists solely of the use of a functioning firearm.

In early August, two Chicago men attempted to hold up a West Rogers Park restaurant using a black toy water pistol. The “weapon”—a fairly convincing replica of an MAC-10 machine pistol—was partially concealed in one of the men’s t-shirts as he demanded that the restaurant owner give them food, stating “I will kill you, I have a gun.” The owner reportedly told the men to come back in an hour and he would have a meal for them as he was too busy at the time. The men obligingly left, returning as asked, an hour later. Of course by that time the restaurant owner had called the police and ushered other patrons out of the restaurant for their safety. Both men were arrested and charged with attempted aggravated robbery. The man with the water pistol was additionally charged with possession of a replica firearm. Both men were slated to appear in court on August 19^th.

On a more national level, many will remember that O.J. Simpson was convicted of aggravated robbery and kidnapping thirteen years after he was acquitted of the crime of killing his former wife. Apparently Simpson was the leader in a group of men who used threats and force to take photos, footballs and other sports memorabilia from Bruce Fromong and Al Beardsley in a Las Vegas motel room in 2007. Simpson’s lawyer claimed his client was a target from the beginning and that Simpson was merely trying to reclaim property which had been stolen from him. Simpson also claimed he had no idea the men helping him recover his property were armed at the time. Simpson was eventually sentenced to 33 years in prison although recently he was granted parole on some of the charges; he will likely remain in prison for several additional years unless his request for a new trial is granted.

In light of the above, it is important to consider the following: robbery consists of taking another person’s property whereas aggravated robbery involves a number of additional dispositive factors. Chicago aggravated robbery charges can vary dramatically from case to case; issues which will determine the extent of the charges generally include the use of force or verbal threats during the act, robbing an elderly person, an injury on the part of the victim, suggesting a weapon is present (even if it was not) or invading the home of another during the robbery act. Aggravated robbery convictions charged as a Class 1 felony are very serious so the crime—even when a water gun is used and nothing is actually taken—can garner the offender 4-15 years in the state prison. The longer sentencing is reserved for robberies which take place in a church or school or when the victim is elderly or handicapped.

The charges of aggravated robbery could have a variety of defenses depending on the circumstances. Your attorney could claim mistaken identity or could defeat the robbery charges by proving nothing was taken. Consideration will also be given to whether there were injuries involved, if you have ever been involved in gang activity or if you have a prior criminal conviction. It is especially important that you not talk to anyone prior to retaining an attorney. Although we’ve all see television shows where the police officers advise suspects of their Miranda rights, few people actually follow this practice in real life. Many people attempt to talk their way out of the charges—a practice which almost always ends up making the situation worse. Continue reading

August 23, 2013

Chicago Identity Theft News – The Growing Epidemic of Identity Theft Across the U.S.

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

As someone who has recently been arrested for Chicago identity theft, you are probably more than aware of the ever growing epidemic of ID theft in the United States.

The problem of identity theft is not contained to one group of people or another, and, contrary to popular belief, is not due to carelessness. Identity theft is also nothing new although there are new ways to accomplish the crime. In the mid-90’s, Steven Spielberg had his personal information hacked by an inmate in a Tennessee prison who was angling to use Spielberg’s American Express card. Oprah Winfrey had her social security number, birth dates of friends and relatives and personal addresses stolen by a busboy and Anthony Taylor obtained Tiger Woods’ personal information, purchasing more than $50,000 in merchandise.

Taylor additionally procured a fake driver’s license, social security card and military I.D. in Tiger’s name—even though he apparently was not bright enough to spell Tiger’s middle name correctly on the illegal documents. High-tech online thieves have even stolen personal information from Michelle Obama, Vice-President Joe Biden, the director of the FBI and even the Los Angeles Police Chief.

On a more local level, four women recently attempted to board a Chicago flight to Las Vegas when they were arrested and charged with identity theft. The four women’s plane tickets were purchased with a stolen Discover card and each woman was in possession of a variety of other stolen items including credit cards, keys to a Hertz rental car, stolen driver’s licenses and counterfeit I.D.’s. Bonds set for the four women ranged from $25,000 to $75,000, with three of the women being held in lieu of bond. The Chicago Police Financial Crimes Unit, along with the U.S. Secret Service, are currently investigating the incident.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, over 8 million households reported one instance of identity theft in 2010, costing victims over $13 billion. Victims of identity theft typically suffer losses of about $2,200. Identity theft occurs when an individual uses the personal information of another without knowledge or permission and with a goal of personal gain. This information can include social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, banking information, birthdates and credit card numbers. Personal information stolen from another can be used to apply for credit cards—or even a mortgage to buy a home.

Anyone charged with identity theft today will face a wide range of potential charges as well as state and federal law enforcement bent on pursuing the maximum penalties possible. The five basic types of identity theft are:

Character and criminal theft
Theft of Social Security numbers
Theft of medical information
Theft of DMV records
Financial theft

Financial theft involves using stolen credit cards or banking information in order to steal another’s financial assets. Stealing another’s identity in order to commit crimes—while keeping one’s own record clear—falls under character and criminal theft. Social Security theft is rampant simply because there is a huge amount of personal information which can be accessed with this coveted number. Theft of a Social Security number can in turn allow thieves to avoid debt or taxes or can be used to directly steal money. Some identity thieves steal medical information as a means of getting necessary medical procedures done while avoiding the bill, and, finally, driver’s license theft—like Social Security number theft—can be used to gain access to other personal information. Theft of driver’s licenses is the number one form of ID theft in the United States.

There are certain “enhancers” to the crime of identity theft which can increase the eventual sentence. Aggravated identity theft involves the commission of a felony in conjunction to the identity theft and can add two years to the sentence. If you held a position of power over your identity theft victim you can expect a significant increase in your sentence. Those involved in phishing scams may also receive an additional two years added to their sentencing. (Phishing is a practice which makes Internet users believe they are receiving an email from a trusted sources or that they are securely connected to a trusted web site when that is not the case). Continue reading

August 22, 2013

Chicago Armed Robbery Charges Likely When Bank Robbery with Hammer is Apprehended

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

Having been charged with Chicago armed robbery, you are aware that this is one of the most serious types of charges you can face. In fact, probation is not even an option.

According to the FBI, a man in Park Ridge, Illinois, armed with a hammer, proceeded to rob a bank, getting away with an undisclosed amount of cash. It was noted by those at the scene that the robber appeared extremely nervous and agitated during the crime, luckily however, no one was injured. The man has not yet been apprehended, however when he is caught, he will likely be charged with armed robbery. It is worth noting that, in light of the above story, anyone considering committing the crime of robbery should remember that sometimes others fight back when they perceive a credible threat to their safety. For instance, a 62-year old Chicago shop owner defended his store and his brother-in-law who was in the shop, by swinging a baseball bat at two robbers as one of them opened fire. The shop owner and one of the gunmen suffered gunshot wounds and the robbers—who fled the shop—were later identified through surveillance video. One suspect was apprehended and is currently being held on charges of armed robbery and attempted murder. The shop owner is expected to make a full recovery.

Chicago Armed Robbery is considered a violent crime, involving the use of force or the threat of force. The circumstances surrounding the crime will have considerable bearing on the charges, as well as the eventual sentence. If the robbery was perpetrated on an elderly or disabled person or if serious bodily injury occurred in the commission of the crime, the charges will increase accordingly. Armed robbery occurs when a deadly weapon is used or when the person being robbed was threatened with the weapon. Prior robbery convictions or even a history of unrelated criminal charges can make the sentencing more severe. If you were on probation or parole when you were arrested for armed robbery, the felony charges may be escalated to a higher class. In some cases your criminal defense attorney might be able to negotiate your charges down to a lesser offense.

Although many people believe robbery is one of the most-often committed crimes, in fact it is down the list at number five, following larceny-theft, burglary, motor vehicle theft and aggravated assault. If you have taken part in an armed robbery, be aware that the charges are very serious and that there is a very narrow window of time between your arrest and the prosecutor’s decision to file charges against you. Those with an experienced criminal defense attorney by their side stand the best chance of avoiding criminal charges. The consequences of an armed robbery conviction can include:

· A permanent criminal record

· The necessity of submitting to random drug testing

· Restitution

· Steep fines

· Jail or prison time

· The inability to obtain a student loan after your prison sentence has ended

· The inability to obtain a job, work with children, obtain a professional license, run for public office or own a firearm once your prison sentence has ended

· A negative impact on your ability to obtain employment

Your Chicago criminal defense attorney will assess your individual situation thoroughly then determine the best course of action. Some potential defenses include:

· Failure to read the Miranda rights to you

· An illegal search or seizure

· Your alibi for the time of the robbery

· A claim of mistaken identity

· The lack of intent to commit the crime charged

August 4, 2013

Bradley Manning Found Not Guilty of Aiding the Enemy, Guilty of Lesser Charges

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

Recently, Bradley Manning, the 25-year old private who released over 750,000 pages of classified U.S. military documents and videos to the website WikiLeaks, was found not guilty of aiding the enemy – the most serious of the 21 counts he faced. Specifically, Manning faced possible life imprisonment had he been convicted on this charge. Manning was also found not guilty of unauthorized possession of information relating to national defense.

Manning was, however, found guilty of most of the remaining charges lobbed against him, including six espionage charges, five theft charges, computer fraud, and other military infractions. The judge, Judge Col. Denise Lind, also accepted two guilty pleas Manning had previously entered to two lesser charges. For all the various convictions, Manning faces over 130 years in prison. There is, however, no minimum sentence the judge must impose. Manning will return to court on Wednesday to begin his sentencing hearing.

Considered the largest leak in U.S. history of highly classified government materials, Manning (since 2010) admittedly provided battlefield reports, diplomatic cables, and other confidential materials, including battlefield videos, to the disclosure portal, WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks published much of the material on its website, as did a number of major news sources. Some of the most infamous leaked material includes a video of a 2007 Bagdad airstrike which WikiLeaks dubbed “Collateral Murder.” As a result, Manning was arrested in 2010 and ultimately charged with 22 counts, including espionage and the capital offense of aiding the enemy.

While Manning has awaited trial the past 3 years, the world has furiously debated whether his actions were that of a whistleblower or a traitor to his country. Manning himself has stated that he released the documents and videos because they had concerned him and he wanted to show the public the true costs of war. The prosecution, however, urged that Manning released the material to with an evil intent, knowing it would be seen by terrorists.

In light of the above, Manning’s high-profile conviction will have long-reaching implications in the legal field. Among them are:

1. Precedent setting— the Manning case is a precedent setting one. Manning was convicted under the Espionage Act for his leaks to the media, despite a lack of evidence that he had the intent to harm the United States. Some see this as a scary precedent for the handling of future secret sharers. On the other hand, his acquittal on the count of aiding the enemy serves to narrow the reach of that crime. Traditionally, the capital crime of aiding the enemy has been used to punish those who directly turn over secret material to the enemy, such as occurred in World War II when POW’s provided information to the Japanese. Legal analysts feared that if Manning were convicted on the charge of aiding the enemy for his actions, it would set dangerous new precedent because Manning did not directly place the secret material in the hands of the enemy. By rejecting the charge, Judge Lind appears to express a belief that the definition of the crime of aiding the enemy should not be expanded to encompass Manning’s behavior.

2. Chilling effect on whistleblowers— despite being found innocent of aiding the enemy, Manning still faces over 130 years imprisonment for his actions and has already spent 3 years in confinement awaiting trial, including a harrowing 9 months in solitary confinement. Manning’s arrest and conviction, along with the recent high profile charges against fellow secret sharer Edward Snowden, could potentially have a grave chilling effect on would be whistleblowers, secret sharing websites like WikiLeaks, and even major news media. Continue reading

August 1, 2013

Blast from the Past: Lessons Learned from the Chandra Levy Case

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

Facing a Chicago murder charge can carry significant consequences.

It has been over a decade since the disappearance of 24-year-old Washington, D.C. intern Chandra Levy, but the case is back in the national spotlight as questions continue to swirl concerning the guilt of Ingmar Guandique, the Salvadorian illegal immigrant convicted of killing Levy in 2010.

The Chandra Levy case, which captured national attention due to its mystery, intrigue, and political ties, is back in court due to the fact that defense attorneys for Ingmar Guandique have called into question the testimony of a star prosecution witness, Armando Morales. Numerous hearings have been held on the matter but, until now, the proceedings were kept secret due to concerns for Morales safety. On July 29, 2013, however, D.C. Superior Court Judge Gerald Fisher ordered the release of the transcripts of these previously confidential hearings. While it is unclear how much new information these documents will contain, they should be available by the end of the week.

Ingmar Guandique was charged with the death of Chandra Levy in 2009, seven years after Levy’s remains were found in a Washington, D.C. area park. Guandique, then 20 years old, was already in jail for attacking two women in the very same park where Chandra Levy’s body was found. From the start, he adamantly denied murdering Chandra Levy. During his trial, the prosecution presented the crucial testimony of Armando Morales, Guandrique’s one time cell mate, also a convicted felon and gang member, who told the jury that Guandique confessed to him to killing Chandra Levy.

Guandrique’s defense attorneys state that the unsealed documents will reveal Morales made contradictory statements at trial. For instance, Morales testified at trial that he had never come forward to law enforcement before as he did not trust them. However, the defense recently learned Morales had discussed three murders with law enforcement officers and informed them of drugs and weapons dealings occurring in the prison in which he was housed.

Guandrique’s defense team plans to request a new trial based on this previously undiscovered information affecting Morales’ credibility. The motion will likely be filed in October or November of this year.

Here are a few points to take away from the Ingmar Guandrique Case:

A conviction does not have to be final–with a strong, dedicated defense team a guilty verdict is not irreversible, even in a high-profile Chicago murder case. An experienced defense attorney will continue to fight for your case and diligently search for new evidence that might warrant a new trial.
Witness credibility is crucial—in so many cases like Guandrique’s, witness testimony is one of, if not the deciding factor of, an individual’s guilt. Given the potential for witnesses to lie or be less than fully honest – particularly jail house informants like Morales – it is absolutely critical for your defense attorney to test the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. This is accomplished through thorough discovery, extensive preparation, and effective cross-examination.
Wrongful convictions do happen—although Guandrique’s defense team still faces an uphill battle in proving he deserves a new trial, his case does serve to highlight the fact that wrongful convictions can occur; and do in fact occur more often than we would like to believe. Wrongful convictions are frequently a result of poor lawyering, such as an attorney’s failure to fully investigate and prepare his client’s defense. This makes it imperative to obtain the representation of a skilled, experienced, and dedicated defense attorney.

July 31, 2013

Chicago Arrest News – Is Your Cell Phone Protected from Searches Incident to Arrest?

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

Living in Chicago, many people have unfortunately been subject to unlawful search and seizure by the Chicago Police Department.

That’s the question two federal appellate judges are pushing the Supreme Court to decide. The U.S Supreme Court held over forty years ago that police who arrest someone have the authority to search all items on their person. However, since this time, items on one’s person have grown to encompass a wide variety of cell phones, including smart phones, and tablets which contain a medley of personal information such as pictures, documents, and other private data, that would once have been found only in one’s home. The lower courts are now struggling to decide how to apply tried and true legal principals to these new technologies, and some are calling for the Supreme Court to step in.

In a 2-1 decision this past May, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in the case of United States v. Wurie, No. 11-1792 (1st Cir. 2013), that police practice of seizing and searching cell phones at the time of arrest violates the Fourth Amendment.

The facts of the Wurie case are as follows: while performing routine surveillance, Boston police witnessed what appeared to be a drug sale. Police stopped the individual involved, later learned to be Brima Wurie, and found drugs in his pocket. Police also confiscated two cell phones from Wurie at the station. While waiting to book Wurie, one of the cell phones begin ringing. The phone number was identified as “my house” on the cell phone and police officers observed a picture of a woman and a baby set as Wurie’s “wallpaper.” Police searched the phone number and linked it to an address. After some questioning of Wurie, officers drove to the address they had discovered from the phone number and, believing Wurie may have stashed drugs in the home, they entered to “freeze it” while they obtained a warrant. After obtaining a warrant, officers seized large quantities of drugs from the home.

The First Circuit held that allowing the police to search the phone data without a warrant any time they conducted an arrest would create a serious threat to the privacy of countless individuals.

On Monday, the First Circuit rejected the Justice Department’s request that the justice’s rehear the case and, in a rare move, urged the Supreme Court to take up the issue. Chief Judge Sandra Lynch wrote in her statement that while she believed the case me the criteria for a rehearing, she believed the better course of action would be for the Supreme Court to review the case and resolve provide a final resolve on the issue.

Currently, the circuits are split on the constitutionality of cell phones searches incident to arrest. The First Circuit now joins the Ohio and Florida Supreme Courts in requiring a warrant, while another three circuits, including our Seventh Circuit, have held no warrant is required.

We are left to wait and see in the next few months whether the Supreme Court will take up the issue. In the meantime, one thing that can be learned from the Wurie case and others like it: a skilled defense attorney with experience handling Fourth Amendment issues is absolutely critical to your case. Specifically, a seasoned defense attorney can review the facts of your arrest and determine where the police may have violated your Fourth Amendment rights. Further, a veteran defense attorney like Brima Wurie’s is not afraid to challenge existing precedents and champion new legal holdings.

July 25, 2013

Chicago Gun News – New Illinois Concealed Carry Law Enacted by Legislature

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

By now almost everyone has heard about the Chicago unlawful use of weapon statute revisions. These are also referred to as Chicago gun charges.

After a protracted legal battle, Illinois has adopted legislation to permit individuals to carry a concealed gun, but the permits likely will not be issued until 2014. Illinois takes its place as the final state in the nation to approve a law to allow citizens to carry a concealed gun, but it has not been a smooth process and it may not be over yet.

The current process began in December of 2012, when the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled that Illinois’ ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional in response to a challenge to the State’s unlawful use of a weapon statute by gun rights advocate Mary Shepard. Pursuant to the holding of the 7th Circuit, the Illinois Legislature had until June 9, 2013 to enact legislation that permitted people to carry concealed guns. The Legislature was granted a one month extension and the Senate and House drafted and approved legislation, which subsequently was significantly modified by Governor Pat Quinn’s amendatory veto. However, with a Senate vote of 41-17 and a House vote of 77-31, the Legislature attained the three-fifths majority necessary to override the veto and enact the law.

The Legislature was under intense pressure to come up with some type of acceptable law before the deadline had past due to the uncertainty of what would happen with no regulation in place. Concealed carry supporters claimed that they would be able to carry concealed any type of gun anywhere without any restrictions. Gun control advocates claimed it would be up to local governments to craft and implement restrictions, which could be very strict. The Legislature attempted to reach a compromise with the legislation that was passed, allowing a very permissive process for gun owners to be able to obtain a permit to carry a concealed gun while enacting prohibitions about where these guns could be taken. Locations where concealed carry is not allowed include schools, parks, libraries, and buses and trains that are part of the mass transit system.While the Legislature was wrangling with language and restrictions on a person’s right to carry a concealed gun, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a request with the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc, specifically asking that the entire 7th Circuit reconsider the decision. The 7th Circuit rejected Attorney General Madigan’s request and Ms. Madigan did not appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court.

Under the law passed by the Legislature, the Illinois State Police have 180 days to organize a program to process applications for concealed carry permits and an additional 90 days in which to get all application forms processed. In order to obtain a permit, an applicant must:

Possess a Firearm Owner’s Identification card;
Have passed a background check;
Have undergone a gun-safety training program of at least sixteen (16) hours; and
Paid a fee of $150.00.

Although the State of Illinois now has enacted legislation that dictates the provisions for being permitted to carry a concealed gun and this law is far less restrictive than similar laws in other states, including New York where law enforcement personnel have the discretion to deny permits, gun rights advocates are not happy yet. These advocates believe that the nine (9) months that it will take for the first applicants to obtain their carry permits is a continuation of the unconstitutional ban on carrying concealed guns. Therefore, Mary Shepard, whose lawsuit was the impetus behind the Illinois concealed carry law, has gone back to federal court to force an immediate issuance of the permits. Some local governments are in agreement with this position and have announced that they will not prosecute those local citizens who are discovered with a concealed gun. Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Shepard’s case as moot because the requisite legislation has been enacted. Now, it is a matter of waiting to see whether the courts will give Illinois law enforcement a little time to get an effective system in place. This will greatly affect those facing Chicago gun charges.
Continue reading

July 24, 2013

Chicago Gun UUW News – New Illinois Concealed Gun Law Sparks Federal Litigation

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

Despite Illinois’ recent enactment of its concealed-carry gun law, some gun rights advocates are still not happy – and, they are taking their dissatisfaction to federal court. In a motion filed earlier this month by Mary Shepard, and backed by the Illinois State Rifle Association, she asserts that having to wait several months for the permit process to be outlined is an unjustified abridgment of her Second Amendment rights. Shepard, a gun owner from Cobden, Illinois, was 69 at the time she was brutally attacked (along with her 83-year old coworker) and left for dead by Willis Bates, a paroled felon, as he burglarized the First Baptist Church where she worked. As a result, she argues that had she been able to carry a gun at the time of the incident (back in 2009), she would have been able to thwart the attack and protect herself.

By way of background, the new law was passed on July 9, despite Governor Pat Quinn’s rather vehement objections, barely meeting the deadline set by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to create the legislation. Pursuant to its terms, Illinois State Police are charged with the responsibility of setting up a permit program before concealed-carry applications can be submitted. Specifically, the police have 180 days with which to complete this process, and an additional 90 days to process the application forms that they receive. As a result, Shepard and several other gun rights advocates feel that the aforementioned timeframe is way too long and perpetuates Illinois’ long-standing gun ban until the permit process is up and running. In her court filing, Shepard provides that “the delay proposed by the state constitutes an unacceptable perpetuation of the defendants’ infringement of the Second Amendment rights of Ms. Shepard and the other law-abiding citizens of the state of Illinois”, and further insists that “no Wild West anarchy would ensue” if the U.S. District judge, the Honorable William Stiehl, ruled in her favor.

In response to Shepard’s arguments, the State of Illinois has fired back, stating that her case is completely moot and therefore, should be dismissed. According to the State, it asserts that the law provides Shepard with what she wanted all along – the right to conceal and carry a gun. Moreover, it further argues that the timeframe allotted to the Illinois State Police to develop the permit program should be allowed to run its course. Notwithstanding both the State and Ms. Shepard’s respective positions, no hearing date has been set by Judge Stiehl to rule on the matter.
Continue reading