Arrests

August 25, 2016

How do Judges Set Bail in Illinois?

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

The Chicago Tribune reports that a Chicago man is currently being held at the Skokie courthouse jail with bail set at $250,000 for allegedly Tasering a 79-year old woman during an attempted robbery. The man is charged with aggravated battery and attempted robbery after supposedly attacking the elderly woman while she was sitting in her car. The man’s public defender has released a statement indicating that the defendant does not have enough money to post bail. Therefore, he will remain in jail at least until his preliminary hearing which is currently scheduled for September 8th. But why did the court decide to set this man’s bail at $250,000? What factors does a court take into consideration when setting bail? This article provides a brief overview of what bail is and how it is set in Illinois.

What is Bail?

Simply put, bail is the amount of money that a court requires in exchange for releasing an accused criminal defendant from custody while he or she awaits a day in court. Money paid as bail is refundable and is returned to the defendant after he or she appears for the court date and satisfies any other conditions of bail. However, if the defendant skips town or does not appear in court for some reason then that bail is forfeited. The idea is that defendants who have posted a seizable bail will be strongly incentivized to show up at court for their trials.

August 21, 2016

Man Wanted for Murder in Chicago Extradited from Mexico

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

Back in 2013, a woman was found dead in her Southwest Side Brighton Park apartment with her throat slashed. The deceased woman’s husband disappeared before her body was found and the police put out a warrant for his arrest. Authorities suspected that the husband fled to Mexico after killing his wife, and so the Chicago FBI’s Violent Crimes Task Force coordinated an international manhunt to look for him. It took a few years, but the wanted man was arrested in Mexico earlier this year and was extradited back to the United States just last week, reports Fox 32. According to the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, the man was charged with one count of first-degree murder and is currently being held without bail.

What is Extradition?

Extradition is the transfer of a wanted person from the country in which the individual is hiding to the country that wants to put them on trial. Extradition can also occur between states within the United States. Whether or not a country agrees to turn over a wanted person often depends on whether or not the countries involved have signed an extradition treaty with each other and what the provisions of that treaty are. The United States has extradition treaties with many countries around the world, including Mexico.

August 19, 2016

Undercover Police Officers Posing as Prostitutes

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

This summer, police officers across the United States have been cracking down on prostitution-related offenses. Sting operations aimed at stopping the solicitation of prostitution have been executed across the country, including several in Illinois. The Chicago Tribune reports that a recent sting operation in Arlington Heights resulted in 14 men being charged with the crime of soliciting a sexual act. The Arlington Heights police carried out the sting by placing ads on the internet designating a specific time and hotel for interested people to meet. When individuals arrived at the designated hotel room a female undercover agent greeted them. Additional officers were waiting to arrest offenders who offered money to the undercover agent for sexual acts and to charge them with misdemeanor solicitation of a sexual act.

What Constitutes Entrapment?

Typically, entrapment occurs when a police officer induces someone to commit a crime that he or she would otherwise not have been disposed to commit. Entrapment can be used as a defense to a criminal charge, and is often alleged by defendants who have been charged with solicitation of a sexual act. In Illinois, the legal test for entrapment is contained in 720 ILCS 5/7-12 and prohibits a criminal defendant from being convicted if their illegal conduct was either incited or induced by a public agent in order to obtain evidence for the prosecution of that person. However, entrapment can not be used as a defense if the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime and the public agent simply provided them with the opportunity to commit it.

August 17, 2016

Chicago’s Database of Likely Killers and Victims

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

The Chicago Police Department (CPD) has a list of Chicagoans who are believed to be at risk of either killing or being killed. The police started compiling their Strategic Subject List three years ago in an attempt to save the lives of everyone listed, reports the Chicago Tribune. One by one, individuals on the strategic subject list are visited during a proactive well-being check. These checks, known as “custom notifications,” do not involve arrests but instead conversations and warnings. Officers warn listed individuals that they have been identified as being at risk for killing or being killed and that there are alternatives for safer lifestyles available to them. Depending on the circumstances, officers sometimes bring community activists or religious leaders with them during these well-being checks.

What Factors are Used to Generate Chicago’s Strategic Subject List?

The police have not precisely explained the factors that are being used to identify at-risk individuals for their Strategic Subject List. However, the department did tell the Chicago Tribune that they are focusing on the 1,400 individuals who are considered to be most at risk and that a person’s criminal record, age at first arrest, and whether the person has been previously shot are all taken into account. Some civil rights organization leaders in Chicago are concerned that the CPD is not telling the public which factors are being used to create the Strategic Subject List and worry that this lack of transparency may be masking racial profiling. The Police Department says that they will not release the precise combination of factors that are being used as doing so would undermine the program’s effectiveness.

August 11, 2016

Police Body Cameras and Crime in Chicago

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

Last month an African-American teenager was fatally shot by the Chicago police at the conclusion of a car chase. An article on WMUR.com reports that the police attempted to pull over the 18-year-old as the Jaguar convertible that he was driving had been reported stolen. The teen refused to pull over, led the police on a chase through the South Side of Chicago, hit a police cruiser and a parked car, and eventually two police officers opened fire on him. The teenager died from his injuries and his family has since filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging wrongful death and excessive force.

The news is highlighting this shooting as the latest event in a string of violent confrontations between African-American communities and police officers in Chicago. Unfortunately, there have been several police incidents lately during which members of the community claim police officers used excessive force. Chicago’s Police Department is attempting to foster trust between officers and community members by arming their police officers with body cameras. The idea is that the cameras will record police interactions with civilians in order to provide evidence in case any misconduct occurs. However, police body cameras can only serve their intended purpose if they are turned on and functioning properly, which is not always the case. During the police shooting described above, the body camera of the officer who fatally shot the teen failed to record during the shooting. The police department reports that they are currently in a body camera pilot program and that officers received their cameras approximately eight to 10 days before the shooting. At this time it is not clear why the officer’s body camera was not recording at the time of the shooting.

Body Camera Laws in Illinois

May 27, 2016

The Miranda Warning

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

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney.” The Miranda warning, or Miranda rights, are probably familiar to anyone who has watched police dramas or true crime shows on television, but the practical aspects of them are often misunderstood.

History

People in the United States have the rights under the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination and under the Sixth Amendment to an attorney when they are being accused of a crime by law enforcement. The Miranda warning developed out of a Supreme Court holding in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) which set out that in order for a statement made to law enforcement officers to be admissible in court the accused needs to be made explicitly aware of these two rights. The Miranda warning statement thus serves two purposes. First, it defends the accused by notifying them of their rights, and second it ensures that any statements that the accused makes to the police will be admissible in court.

May 6, 2016

Taking Politics Out of Policing the Neighborhood

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

Law enforcement needs community cooperation, involvement, and support. The community needs law enforcement to “protect” it from criminal behavior and to “serve” it in dangerous situations. Both the community and law enforcement need each other in order to keep chaos at bay. But there are communities and neighborhoods in every state that do not understand this concept of interdependency. In those communities, the mistrust runs deep, unfortunately, spurred on by the media, by special interest groups for whatever political clout they feel they can get from it, and of course criminal elements that take advantage of the chasm between the police and residents.

The special interest groups, out of their own misguided intentions and misunderstanding of the importance of having the police and the communities work together, are convinced that law enforcement is the enemy. They are waging a very effective PR campaign again law enforcement, so much so that some communities are being made to believe that law enforcement and not the gang activity in the communities is destroying the neighborhoods.

Civil disobedience and glaring disrespect is the name of the name when there is any interaction between the police and members of these communities, including something as small as a traffic stop. These problems keep the police on high alert when they are called upon to enforce the law in these communities. This lack of mutual respect and trust between law enforcement and the neighborhoods has created a breeding ground for criminal activity.

May 4, 2016

Chicago Law Enforcement Handicapped, Community Involvement Required

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

When crime on the streets gets so out of control, when criminal gang members have their run of the neighborhoods, when they can commit violent crimes without compunction, including violent assaults and murder, then you will find at the very foundation of such lawlessness a total breakdown of community involvement and lack of support for the law enforcement.

Gang Members Given “Get Out of Jail” Passes

Get out of jail passes, also known as parole, are not normally given to convicts with a long history of violence. In fact, when crimes are committed by persons while out on parole, the parole is revoked and the individual is re-arrested and required to not only serve any new prison sentence, but also the remainder of the sentence from which he was paroled.

January 6, 2016

A Question of Guilt or Innocence

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

Arrested, charged, prosecuted, imprisoned, but innocent. This scenario is played out over and over again in our judicial system across the nation. While America has one of the finest judicial systems in the world, sometimes we get it wrong and an innocent person ends up spending time in prison for a crime he or she did not commit. Sometimes an overzealous law enforcement officer does something inappropriate in order to effectuate the prosecution and imprisonment of that person, knowing that that person did not commit the crime.

The reason for the arrest and imprisonment of an innocent person due to police misconduct could be attributable to a number of things including greed, vindictiveness, revenge, or just plain abuse of power. Whatever the reason, we all know that it does happen from time to time.

This is not to say that we have rampant lawlessness in any of our police departments. Our men and women in blue do the thankless job of keeping our neighborhoods safe from crime and should be commended for their bravery in the face of a multitude of dangers and risks of physical harm to themselves. Without the police protecting our communities, there would be anarchy. They are needed to protect our peace, and they deserve our respect and gratitude.

April 24, 2015

Anything You Say – or Don’t Say – Can and Will Be Used Against You in Court

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

The 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination is one of the most well-known rights in criminal defense, right up there with the right against unlawful search and seizure and the requirement that police read suspects the Miranda warnings. Yet a criminal suspect doesn’t always have “the right to remain silent”, and not have that silence used against him in court.

Salinas v. Texas Requires Affirmative Claim of Right to Remain Silent

In Salinas v. Texas, the defendant was questioned in regard to a murder investigation. The defendant was not under police custody, thus he had not yet been read his Miranda warnings, which inform criminal suspects that they have the right to remain silent, and that any statements given can and will be used against them in court. The defendant voluntarily answered the officer’s questions in regard to the murder, until the officer asked whether a ballistics test would confirm that shells found at the crime scene matched the defendant’s shotgun. At this line of questioning the defendant simply stopped talking.

At trial the prosecution introduced the defendant’s silence as proof of guilt. Because the defendant had willingly spoken with police, the prosecution argued that the defendant’s refusal to answer that specific question was indicative of guilt. The defendant argued that using his silence as evidence of guilt violated his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The trial court disagreed, and defendant was convicted. His appeals took the case to the United States Supreme Court.

The court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, ruling that the right to remain silent is an affirmative right. This means that in order for the right to apply – and for evidence of silence to not be used against the suspect in court – the defendant must say, “I am invoking my right to remain silent”, or similar words to that effect. Refusing to answer police questions is insufficient to invoke the right.

There are only two instances where the defendant’s failure to speak cannot be used against him. The first is where he is in police custody and has not been read his Miranda rights. The court said that such a circumstance is so coercive that the defendant need not affirmatively invoke the privilege because his statements cannot be considered voluntary.

The second is during trial, where the defendant has an “absolute right” not to take the stand, for whatever reason. The jury is not permitted to take the defendant’s failure to testify on his own behalf as evidence of guilt, nor can the prosecution suggest that the defendant’s failure to take the stand is proof of guilt.

The Supreme Court refused to accept the defendant’s argument that invocation of the 5th amendment right to remain silent should be assumed when a suspect refuses to answer police questions that would imply guilt. The court stated that while this may be the most probable reason for the person’s silence, it is not necessarily the only reason – his reason for not answering could be to protect somebody, to come up with a lie, or any other number of reasons. The purpose of the right to remain silent, the court stated, is not to protect all of the defendant’s statements, but only those that would tend to incriminate himself. Is it the defendant’s burden, the court stated, to invoke the privilege, and not for the prosecution to figure out the reason for the silence.