Arrests

April 3, 2024

Understanding When Police in Illinois Can Act Without a Warrant

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

Overview of Warrantless Actions by Law Enforcement

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, generally requiring that police obtain a warrant before conducting a search or making an arrest. However, the law also recognizes several exceptions where police actions do not require a warrant. These exceptions are designed to balance the need for public safety with individual rights. In Illinois, as in other states, these exceptions are particularly nuanced, given the state’s specific legal statutes and case law.

It is crucial for residents to understand these exceptions to better assert their rights and understand the limits of police authority. This knowledge can be particularly valuable in situations where quick judgment calls are necessary — both for police officers and the individuals they interact with.

June 23, 2023

Police Seargent Found Not Guilty After Pinning Teen to Sidewalk

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

In an incident that was reminiscent of the murder of George Floyd, a Chicago police sergeant was charged with aggravated battery and official misconduct after pinning a 14-year-old boy to the sidewalk while off duty. During a bench trial, the sergeant was found not guilty of the charges, although he remains on leave after having his police duties stripped. The family says they plan on filing a civil lawsuit in the case.

A viral video of the incident made its way across social media, stoking animosity toward the sergeant and police in general. The sergeant could be seen with his knee on the boy’s back. The boy was face down, lying on the ground.

According to reports, the officer believed that his son’s stolen bicycle was spotted near a Starbucks. The officer found the bicycle near a group of teens and waited to see if anyone would take it. The 14-year-old touched the bicycle to move it, and that is when the officer confronted him. The officer grabbed the teen, placed him in an arm bar, and pushed him to the ground. Then he placed his knee on the teen’s back.

April 12, 2023

Waiver, Non-Custodial Questioning, and the Limits of Miranda Rights

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

You have seen it on TV a thousand times. A police officer makes an arrest, then tells the perp, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.”

In the Miranda v. Arizona case, the Supreme Court established that law enforcement officers must warn criminal suspects about two crucial rights under the United States Constitution: the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination (“No person shall be…compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,”) and the Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”) Only once this warning has been given may the suspect knowingly waive the right against self-incrimination and make a statement to police officers.

The Risk of Waiving Your Right Against Self-Incrimination

March 4, 2022

Officer Will Not Face Charges After Groin Punching Suspect

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

Two officers approach a suspect who opens fire on them. They return fire and strike the suspect. The suspect has now been shot. The police have him in cuffs and are searching him to determine where the gun is. The officer is patting him down. Another officer is standing near him. The officer who is doing the patdown hits his head on the other officer. Thinking it was the suspect who tried to strike him, he punches the man in the groin several times.

Bodycam footage does not show the suspect threatening the officer at the time of the arrest. The officer was relieved of duty and then charged with aggravated battery and official misconduct. However, a grand jury declined to file charges against the officer and so, the case has been dismissed.

Understanding the Problem

October 5, 2018

What Happens if I am Not Read My Rights?

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

Getting arrested is never easy. Even if you were arrested for a minor infraction, it is still a stressful process that can have you worried about your rights and how long you will be held. Many are under the assumption that if they were arrested and not read their Miranda rights that they can have the charges dropped. This is not the case. The charges can still be filed against the defendant, but there are some things that the prosecution will not be allowed to do, which we will discuss below.

What are Miranda Rights?

First, we should define what Miranda Rights are so that you understand your rights and what a police officer is supposed to read to you when placing you under arrest for any crime. During every arrest you must be read the following:

June 21, 2017

The Stop and Search Law: Racial Disparities in Chicago

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

Few laws have created the angst that is experienced in the stop-and-search era. The basic premise is that if you come from an ethnic minority, then the chances are that you will be more likely to be stripped and searched than a member of the mainstream community, which is primarily white Caucasian in this context. It is a violation of civil liberties. There are numerous reports of these powers being abused.

The law enforcement agencies may hide behind the notion that they are merely engaging in a consensual process, but consensus can never be achieved if one of the parties to the cause is so much more powerful and influential. The power of arrest and charge is particularly compelling to any would-be suspect when he or she is deciding whether or not to resist the arrest. The law enforcement agencies have attempted to report this as a practical matter of people from ethnic minorities committing more crimes more often than their mainstream white Caucasian counterparts. Other social researchers disagree with this premise because it does not account for the impact of the systemic deprivations with which these ethnic minorities have to contend.

Working Towards a Sustainable Model

January 25, 2017

Vehicular Hijacking in Chicago

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

Just like in many jurisdictions, Illinois takes vehicular hijacking to be a particularly serious crime as listed in the provisions of the legislative instrument number 720 ILCS 5/18-4. Upon conviction, the defendant can expect a term of imprisonment that ranges anywhere from four to 15 years. There are specific aggravating and mitigating features that the defense attorney should pay careful attention to.

If the judge believes that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating features, they can raise the sentencing range to six to 30 years. In exceptional cases, a whole life term may be imposed. Therefore, it is clear that this is the type of offense in which the court has wide discretion. It also means that the defendant will require first-class legal representation in order to bring the categorization down to the lowest end of the seriousness scale.

Procedural and Substantive Considerations in the Legal Framework

January 18, 2017

Arraignments in Chicago: The Real Start of the Trial

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

Upon arrest, a defendant is normally taken through a preliminary hearing according to the provisions of statutory instrument number 725 ILCS 5/110-5. This is a critical step for the defense lawyers because that is when a finding of probable cause is considered. It can be undertaken by either a judge in chambers or the grand jury. The litmus test is the preponderance of evidence. This evidence is adduced through testimony and some limited cross examination by the prosecutor. Defending attorneys sometimes complain that this stage of proceedings is so obviously dominated by the prosecutor that they can literally set the agenda from the word go.

The finding of a probable cause then leads to the arraignment and assignment. The rules and practice in Chicago is to take no more than two weeks after the preliminary hearing or grand jury indictment. The presiding judge first assigns the defendant his trial judge. This is the senior judicial officer that will hear the case right through the determination of innocence/guilt, including the consequent punishment phase. The reason for using one judge are rooted in the need to ensure consistency and fairness. In any case, it is expected that the trial judge will have an intimate knowledge of the case which might become critical when handling matters of appeal.

Advice from Seasoned Attorneys

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.

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.