Articles Posted in Arrests

by

The United States Supreme Court strengthened an individual’s right to be free from unlawful search and seizures last week when it ruled that, barring certain limited exceptions, law enforcement may not search a criminal suspect’s cell phone without a warrant.

Riley v. California Bans Warrantless Cell Phone Searches

Riley v. California involved two defendants, David Riley and Burma Wurie.

Riley’s car was impounded in California after he was pulled over for having expired registration tags and driving with a suspended license. His car was impounded, and a routine inventory search uncovered concealed and loaded firearms. Riley was then arrested, and an officer seized and searched his cell phone, which showed evidence of gang-related activity. The evidence found on the phone resulted in Riley being further charged with attempted murder, assault with a semi-automatic weapon and firing at an occupied vehicle.

In the second case, Wurie was arrested after police observed him making a drug sale from his car. At the police station, officers seized his phone and, after noticing several calls coming in to the phone from a caller identified as “my house,” opened and searched the phone until they determined the number associated with “my house.” They traced the number to an address and obtained a search warrant, where they uncovered drugs and firearms.

Both Riley and Wurie sought to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of law enforcement’s search of their cell phones, arguing that it violated their protections against unlawful search and seizure.

Law enforcement may stop and frisk an individual if they believe the person was, or is about to, commit a crime, and the frisk may only be to search for weapons to protect the officer’s safety or to prevent evidence from being destroyed. Known as a search incident to an arrest, the Court pointed out that cell phones do not fall within this exception.

In prior cases, the Court had ruled that searching a crumpled cigarette pack found in a suspect’s pocket was reasonable. However, the Court refused to extend that standard to cell phones, which the court noted contain massive quantities of private data, and a search of an arrestee’s phone is much more invasive than looking in a cigarette pack taken from his pocket.

Furthermore, the court noted that there is no danger of an officer’s being harmed from a cell phone (while the cigarette pack could have contained unknown weapons). Without the risk of harm, a search of the cell phone – even if done following a lawful search and seizure – is not allowed without a warrant.

Chicago Search and Seizure of Cell Phones

How does the Supreme Court’s ruling affect residents of Chicago and the rest of Illinois? United States Supreme Court decisions that deal with constitutional issues apply to every state. Therefore, the Court’s ruling prevents Chicago area law enforcement from lawfully seizing and searching your cell phone or other similar digital device without first obtaining a warrant.

Keep in mind, however, that the Court’s ruling does not prevent law enforcement officers from asking an arrestee if they can search his phone, or from searching it if they have consent. So if a Chicago police officer stops you and asks to see your cell phone, whether you have been arrested or not, your answer should always be no. If you consent, anything law enforcement finds on your phone can be used against you in court.

If an officer searches your phone without a warrant, it is important that you contact a criminal defense attorney with experience handling search and seizure cases. It may be possible to have the charges brought against you dismissed if any evidence is in any way related to a warrantless search of your cell phone.  Continue reading

by

Chicago job applicants with a felony or misdemeanor on their record will no longer be required to include their criminal history on job applications under the Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act. Known as the “ban the box” measure, for the box on job applications that asks applicants to check whether they have ever been convicted of a crime, the new law is expected to be signed by the governor and go into effect January 1, 2015.

Illinois Employers Prohibited From Inquiring about Criminal History

The law prohibits employprisoners with more than 15 employees from asking potential employees on the job application whether they have a criminal history. Instead, employers may only ask about a potential employee’s criminal history at the job interview or when a conditional offer of employment is made, if there were no interviews. Employers are also prohibited from conducting background checks on potential employees until the interview or job offer phase.

The new law is a necessary protection for job applicants with a criminal history, especially those convicted of non-violent crimes or crimes when they were very young and immature. Many of these individuals never get past the application stage, despite being qualified for the job, simply because of the hiring committee’s prejudice against ex-inmates.

The law will let qualified individuals proceed to the interview phase, where they will have the opportunity to explain the circumstances that led to their conviction, address the company’s concerns about hiring an ex-prisoner, and prove to the hiring committee that they will be a hard-working, dedicated employee.  Studies show that employers who meet with an ex-prisoner are four times more likely to hire them. Without this law, these individuals may never be able to gain meaningful, gainful employment sufficient to support themselves and their family, resulting in higher recidivism rates.

Although definitely a step in the right direction, the law underscores the need for obtaining quality, experienced legal representation from the moment you are arrested and charged with any crime, whether a misdemeanor or felony. Conviction of any crime has consequences that extend beyond prison time, fines and/or probation – it can adversely affect your ability to obtain a job or acquire housing. And while the law prohibits employers from inquiring into your criminal history until the interview phase or when a job offer has been made, it does not prohibit a potential employer from refusing to hire you because of that criminal history.

The only sure way to avoid losing a potential job is to not have a criminal history – and that starts with hiring a tough criminal defense lawyer who can get the charges against you dropped and win an acquittal in court. You want an attorney who knows how to find and exploit the flaws in the prosecution’s case. You want an attorney who works with a team of private investigators and forensic and medical experts to cast doubt on the prosecution’s evidence. With 18 years of experience successfully defending clients against all types of misdemeanors and felonies, you want David L. Freidberg.  Continue reading

by

Newly discovered DNA evidence has cast serious doubt this week on the convictions of two Lake County men who were sentenced to prison for the commission of two different murders. Juan Rivera was convicted of the 1992 rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl, despite the fact that his DNA did not match semen taken from the victim’s body. Marvin Tyrone Williford was convicted in 2004 for beating and setting fire to a 39-year-old man in 2000; the victim died in 2002 from his wounds.

Blood evidence taken from the 2000 case has now been matched to semen taken from the 1992 case, indicating a strong likelihood that the same person committed both crimes. More importantly, two men appear to have been wrongly convicted and spent unnecessary years behind bars.

DNA Shows Innocent Illinois Defendants Sent to Prison

How could this happen?  dna-3-1037197-m

Sadly, it is an unfortunate fact of criminal law that far too often, innocent people are sent to prison for crimes they did not commit. Unreliable or lying witnesses, prosecutors who are more concerned with closing cases than serving justice, or ruthless police interrogation tactics can and do result in criminal convictions of innocent defendants. In some of these cases, DNA evidence later exonerates them, although not before these innocent men and women have spent many years of their life behind bars. Since 1989, 316 prison inmates have been exonerated after their conviction thanks to DNA evidence; the average number of years spent behind bars for those exonerated was 13.5.

The presence of DNA is not the smoking gun that crime shows like CSI and Law and Order would have you believe. Its presence at a crime scene does not prove that a crime was committed; rather, it proves that somebody was simply present at the crime scene. In rape cases, for example, DNA obtained from semen samples proves only that the parties had sexual intercourse, not that a rape occurred.

This is the tack that prosecutors in the 1992 rape and murder took when arguing their case to the jury. They knew that Rivera’s DNA did not match the semen sample taken from the victim. But instead of dismissing the charges, the prosecution argued that the victim – at age 11 – had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with a third-party prior to the murder, which accounted for the unmatched semen sample. They instead relied on Rivera’s confession (that he later recanted), which was obtained following four days of police interrogation.

In other cases, prosecutors bent on closing cases can try to ignore the existence of DNA evidence that shows the defendant did not commit the crime, and focus on other flimsy evidence to try and bolster their case and win a conviction. Williford was convicted despite there being no physical evidence linking him to the crime – blood evidence found on the two-by-four did not match Williford’s DNA. Instead he was convicted based largely on eyewitness testimony that he wielded the two-by-four that was used to beat the victim.

This is why it is important to have a criminal defense attorney who has the tenacity to attack prosecutors who are bent on obtaining a conviction despite DNA evidence showing the defendant’s innocence. The Law Offices of David L. Freidberg is armed with a team of forensic experts who can help analyze DNA evidence to determine whether the prosecutor’s experts came to the right conclusion, and whether testing protocols were followed.  Continue reading

by

It is a phenomenon that we have seen repeatedly in news stories across the country in recent months: parents leaving their young children unattended in the car while they go shopping or to a job interview. And now a Skokie, Illinois woman has been charged with child endangerment for leaving her toddler in the car while she went to work, a misdemeanor under Illinois law.

Illinois Child Endangerment

Under Illinois law, an individual commits the crime of child endangerment if she knowingly causes the child’s life or health to be endangered, or causes the child to be placed in circumstances where his life or health would be endangered. Child endangerment is a Class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by less than one year in jail and up to a $2,500 fine.

There is a rebuttable presumption that a child under the age of six is unattended if left in a motor vehicle for more than 10 minutes, and that his life or health was put in danger. A rebuttable presumption means that the trier of fact (either the judge or jury) may assume that the child was left unattended, but the defendant can provide evidence to rebut that presumption.

Children left in cars is common, and most parents are unaware that Illinois has laws against leaving children unattended in motor vehicles. In some cases, there is no neglect at all. Call it a momentary lapse in judgment, or in some cases even an unfortunate accident.

Defense of Child Endangermentchildcar

Of course, there are cases of truly neglectful parents who place their child’s life and health in danger – parents who go off drinking, doing drugs or gambling. But for others, like the ones mentioned above, it is an accident, or a choosing of the lesser of two evils. What type of defense is there against these charges? Defense of both of these types of incidents involves looking at the specific facts of the case to determine if the parent knew that he was leaving the child alone and if he did in fact leave the child alone.

For the parent who forgets that their child was in the car, the charge of child endangerment rests on the word “knowingly”. If the parent can prove that he did not realize he had left his child in the car, then he cannot have knowingly placed the child’s life or health in danger.

For the parent who leaves the child for a short time, defense would hinge on whether the child was truly unattended. Illinois law states that for purposes of leaving a child unattended, the child must have been out of sight of the adult. For instance, if the parent ran in to the bank, could he see the car and the child at all times, perhaps through a window or a door? Did the parent have the ability to see or hear the child from inside the building, perhaps through the use of a monitor left in the car that was able to be seen or heard through the parent’s cell phone? If the parent could prove that he was, in fact, ‘tending to’ the child, then he cannot be charged with child endangerment.  Continue reading

by

Illinois Supreme Court Decision Overturned in Double Jeopardy Case

The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously this month that the Illinois Supreme Court “manifestly erred” when it ordered the retrial of a criminal defendant on charges of aggravated battery and mob action. The retrial, the Court found, would have violated the defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy.

The rule against double jeopardy is one of the cornerstones of criminal defense. The United States and Illinois Constitutions both provide criminal defendants explicit protection against double jeopardy.

Section 10 of the Illinois Constitution states that “No person shall be . . .twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.” This means that once a criminal defendant has been acquitted (found not guilty) of a crime, he cannot be retried – even if evidence is later uncovered that affirms his guilt.

In Crist v. Bretz,the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn.” Because U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding constitutional issues also apply to state laws, this rule applies to Illinois criminal cases,

It is a very clear rule that the Supreme Court has consistently applied time and again. Yet in Martinez, both the Illinois Appellate and Supreme Courts failed to get it right.

Martinez v. Illinois

In 2006, the defendant was arrested and charged with aggravated battery and mob action against two victims. After numerous continuances by the prosecution to try and locate the victims, who were the main witnesses, and delays due to Martinez and his defense attorney, the trial was eventually scheduled to begin in May 2010 (Martinez obviously waived his constitutional right to a speedy trial).

On the day of trial, the victims still could not be located. The trial judge refused to grant any more continuances, but offered to postpone the starting time of the trial to later in the day, and to issue subpoenas for their arrest. The prosecution denied both offers and indicated that it would not participate in the case. The jury was sworn in, and the prosecution refused to give opening statements or call any witnesses. The trial judge then granted the defendant’s motion for a directed finding of not guilty, which means the defense attorney requested that the defendant be acquitted since the prosecution, in failing to put on any evidence, had no case against him.

The prosecution appealed, and the defendant argued that double jeopardy applied. His argument was rejected by both the Illinois Appellate and Supreme Courts, who ruled that because the state had put on no evidence, he was in no real danger of ever being found guilty during the first trial.

Martinez then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling based on his petition alone. The rule stated above – that double jeopardy attaches the moment the jury is sworn in – is so clear, the Court had no desire to hear oral arguments on the issue.

Double jeopardy does not apply in all cases. The defendant may be retried if there is a mistrial, or if the prosecution seeks a dismissal. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that in this case, the trial judge offered to dismiss the case, which would have allowed the prosecution to retry Martinez if the victims could be located. The prosecutor failed to take the court up on this offer. Continue reading

by

The Cook County Sheriff’s Office reports that 44% of individuals arrested and brought to Cook County jail for intake on May 22 self-reported as mentally ill. Even if we assume that arrestees self-report at a higher rate because they believe claiming mental illness will grant them leniency, it is still an alarming number, and highlights the importance of hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney if you or your loved one suffers from a mental illness and is arrested in Chicago or the surrounding suburbs.

Mental Illness Not a Criminal Defense in Illinois

Illinois defines mental illness as “a substantial disorder of thought, mood, or behavior which afflicted a person at the time of the commission of the offense and which impaired that person’s judgment, but not to the extent that he is unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his behavior.” Contrary to what some may believe, a claim of mental illness is not the same as pleading insanity as a defense. The insanity defense requires that the defendant lack “substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.”

A person suffering from a mental illness – for example, someone with post-traumatic stress, a type of anxiety disorder – would understand that assaulting his neighbor with a baseball bat is wrong, even though at the moment he was unable to control it. A person suffering from insanity would not believe the attack was wrong and, if successful in pleading insanity, would be absolved of all responsibility.

Is a person suffering from some type of mental illness – whether anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar, or some other illness that, for whatever reason, can momentarily impair his judgment – or even a person suffering from cognitive disabilities, such as a person with Down’s syndrome, held to the same standard as a healthy defendant?

Yes and no.

Mental illness is not a total defense to a crime in Illinois, and so even if both the prosecution and defense agree that the defendant suffered from a mental illness that impaired his judgment, a jury can still find him guilty of a crime. However, defendants often raise it as a defense in court to be granted leniency. And in some cases, the jury or judge will take the defendant’s illness into consideration when reaching a verdict or handing down a sentence, including sending them to an alternate treatment program where they can receive services, rather than simply locking them up in prison.

Mental illness is generally not a driving force behind the commission of crimes. A recent study found that only 7.5% of crimes are committed over the course of symptoms of the defendant’s mental illness, and that 66% of those also committed crimes related to other factors, such as drug abuse, homelessness or being poor. But for individuals suffering from mental illness, an experienced criminal defense attorney is more important than ever. Continue reading

by

Once again Chicago police violated a citizen’s Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure. On April 30, the Illinois Appellate Court issued a ruling in People v. Sims re-affirming that police must have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before they can stop and search an individual.

People v. Sims

In 2010 Henry Sims was stopped by a Chicago police officer after the officer witnessed Sims stuff something down the crotch of his pants and walk away. The officer knew that Sims had a prior arrest for unlawful use of a weapon. He proceeded to stop Sims because his “movement was consistent with someone that could be armed.” The officer immediately palmed Sims’ crotch where he felt not a weapon, but a bag that he recognized as containing narcotics. The bag contained 25 smaller bags, which testing revealed to be cocaine.  supreme-court-1-657696-m

At trial Sims moved to suppress the cocaine, arguing that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity, and that the stop there did not meet the requirements of a Terry stop. The court denied Sims’ motion; he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and was sentenced to six years in prison.

The Illinois Appellate Court overruled the trial court’s decision, finding that the officer’s actions did not meet the two-part test required in determining whether a Terry stop is valid. Sims’ simple act of putting his hand down his pants did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that would justify the stop – and a “hunch” by the officer that Sims had a weapon is insufficient to stop him. Since the stop itself was unreasonable, the search (or frisk) was also unreasonable, as it was not justified by a reasonable belief that the individual was armed and dangerous. Because the only evidence of Sims’ crime was the direct result of the illegal stop and search, the court overturned both Sims’ conviction and imprisonment.

People v. Sims is another in a long line of cases that support the individual’s right to not be harassed by police. As the officer even stated in his trial testimony, it is not illegal for a person to stuff his hands down his pants. He could have been cold, he could have had an itch, or he could have been readjusting, as males do from time to time. As the court noted, it is not the defendant’s responsibility to provide innocent explanations for his behavior; rather, the burden lies with the prosecution to prove that his actions raised a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. But these innocent explanations are ones that a skilled defense attorney would raise in court during a motion to suppress, or at trial to raise reasonable doubt.

The recent passage of Illinois’ concealed carry gun law will make it even more difficult for an officer who has a reasonable suspicion that an individual has a gun, to further prove that he had reasonable suspicion reasonable suspicion that a crime had been, was, or was about to be, committed, since carrying a concealed weapon is now legal. The fact that an individual is seen stuffing a weapon down his pants or adjusting what appears to be a weapon in his jacket pocket is insufficient to make a stop; there is a presumption against the individual engaging in criminal activity, and since carrying a concealed weapon is legal with a permit, the presumption would be that, absent any other reasonably suspicious activity, the individual has a permit and is in legal possession of the concealed weapon. Continue reading

by

Illinois Cook County Sheriff’s officers arrested a Minneapolis man in March after a traffic stop revealed that the man had 25 pounds of crystal methamphetamine in his vehicle. Officers pulled the vehicle over in Arlington Heights after observing it commit several traffic violations. The drugs were found after the driver consented to a police search; the driver was then arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The arrest raises several issues that an experienced drug possession attorney would explore to determine whether the police exceeded their authority in the search, seizure and arrest. Such a violation of the defendant’s rights could help get the charges dismissed or reduced.

Stop, Search and Seizure of Vehicle

Illinois police are permitted to stop a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver has committed a traffic violation. In this case, an experienced attorney would review police reports to determine whether the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver did in fact commit a traffic violation. The police report should reveal what prompted the officers to pull the vehicle over; if no valid reason is included in the report, it could indicate that the police acted on a “hunch,” which does not qualify as reasonable suspicion. Lacking a reasonable suspicion, the stop and everything that followed would be a violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, and may lead to outright dismissal of the charges.

Next comes the search. Police claim that the driver consented to the search. An attorney would again review the police report and discuss with the client how consent was given. There is a difference between if the officer asked, “Would you mind if I searched the vehicle?” or instead stated, “I’m going to need to search the vehicle.”

The first question implies that the driver had the right to refuse, which is the case in all police stops; there is no requirement that you answer the police officer’s questions, and you are always free to go on your way unless an arrest has been made.  An arrest is made when you do not feel that you have the right to leave the scene.

The second statement, however, does not give the driver any indication that he is free to refuse the search and continue on his way. Consent is not freely given if the defendant feels that he cannot refuse. The search may also have been unreasonable if the reason for the stop did not warrant the search; for example, pulling the driver over for a broken taillight would not normally necessitate the search of a vehicle. If consent was not freely given, then discovery of the methamphetamines would be illegal.  A motion to quash the arrest and suppress the evidence would be filed and the evidence would be deemed inadmissible in court, thus leading to an outright dismissal of the charges.

An attorney would also investigate to determine whether the police could prove that the drugs belonged to the driver. Was the car registered to him? If the driver borrowed a friend’s car and did not know it contained drugs, it may be possible to have the intent to deliver charge dismissed. If the car did belong to the driver, had he lent it to anybody recently who may have placed the drugs in the vehicle without his knowledge? If the drugs were planted by a third party, then the intent to deliver charge would have to be dismissed. Both of these scenarios would also negate the charge of intent to deliver.

Intent to Deliver in Illinois  penitentiary-3-434119-m

The defendant in this case was also charged with intent to deliver, which carries stiff penalties; a conviction for possession of more than 900 grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver is a Class X felony, which carries a possible prison sentence of 15 to 60 years and a maximum fine of $500,000 the street value of the drugs, whichever is greater.

An attorney will examine all the evidence to determine if any of the defendant’s rights were violated. If the evidence suggests a guilty verdict, he will zealously negotiate with prosecutors and the judge for a reduced sentence, or seek to reduce the charges or prison time in exchange for helping in an investigation of a larger drug ring. Continue reading

by

The Illinois legislature is considering enacting new laws that would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. The proposed bills fall short of legalizing pot, as Colorado and Washington do, but would instead align Illinois with 16 other states that no longer incarcerate individuals caught with small amounts intended for personal use. The bills are part of a growing movement that perceives marijuana as less dangerous than other drugs. They also seek to alleviate the burden of arrest, prosecution and incarceration of individuals caught with small recreational amounts.

Proposed Changes to Illinois Possession of Marijuana Laws

There are three bills currently working their way through the Illinois legislature seeking to lessen the penalties for different forms of marijuana possession.  weed-403-m

Two bills seek to lower the penalties for marijuana possession for personal use, and increase the amount of marijuana that is considered “for personal use”.

House Bill 5708, which was introduced by Reps. Kelly M. Cassidy and La Shawn K. Ford of Chicago, would classify possession of not more than 30 grams of marijuana or any marijuana-containing substance as a petty offense. Those in possession would receive a ticket and be fined $100. Possession of anywhere from 30-500 grams would be classified as a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense, and a Class 4 felony for a second offense. Currently Class 4 felony and Class 3 felony for a second offense.

House Bill 4299, sponsored by Chicago Rep. Christian Mitchell, makes similar changes to the law as House Bill 5708, but varies the amounts allowed for possession. Under Rep. Mitchell’s bill, possession of 10 grams or less of marijuana would be a petty offense punishable by no more than a $100 fine.  Possession of between 10 and 30 grams would also be a petty offense punishable by no more than a $100 fine for a first offense; a second offense would be a Class A misdemeanor (currently it’s a Class 4 felony).

Chicago Rep. Michael Zalewski introduced House Bill 4091, which would reclassify possession of not more than 30 grams of marijuana as a petty offense, unless the individual had two or more prior convictions, in which case he would be charged with a Class A misdemeanor.

Cost of Prosecution for Illinois Marijuana Possession

Part of the rationale behind the proposed changes in the marijuana possession law is the cost involved in prosecuting what are essentially victimless crimes. In 2011, 663,032 people were arrested nationwide for marijuana possession. There were 100,000 more arrests that year for marijuana possession than for violent crimes. More people were arrested for smoking dope, when the only arguable victim was him or herself, than people arrested for actually causing harm to another person.

Chicago arrests follow that trend – an average of 23,000 arrests each year for marijuana possession, about equal to the number of arrests for assault and battery combined. And the city is spending approximately $78 million to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate these so-called “offenders.” The Chicago police estimate it takes two officers approximately three hours to arrest an individual for marijuana possession, from the time they slap the cuffs on him to the time they file their paperwork. Three hours for the “crime” of lighting up takes away man hours that could be spent patrolling the streets looking for other crimes.

There is also the human cost involved with arrest for marijuana possession. There is the cost to the defendant of hiring an experienced attorney to help defend the case. Under the current law conviction under the lowest offense, a Class C misdemeanor, could result in up to 30 days in jail and up to a $1,500 fine. A person convicted may be required to report the misdemeanor on future job, housing or school applications, putting his ability to work and live where he wants in jeopardy. Continue reading

by

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unlawful searches and seizures. Yet it is the most frequently violated civil right, and on March 20th the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that yet another police officer violated that right by conducting an illegal search and seizure. If a police officer violated your Fourth Amendment rights, it may be possible to get evidence tossed out, or the charges completely dismissed. That is why following an arrest you should immediately meet with an experienced Chicago search and seizure attorney who can help determine whether the police exceeded their authority during the arrest.

Illinois Stop, Search and Seizure Law

Illinois law permits a police officer to stop any person he reasonably believes is about to commit, is in the process of committing, or has committed, a crime of any nature. You are not required to answer any questions the police may ask, nor are you required to show identification. The officer may also perform a limited search of the person for evidence of the suspected crime. These are known as Terry stops.

The Terry stop rules apply to vehicles as well, and the police are usually permitted to ask to see the driver’s license. But not every traffic stop allows the police to request the driver’s identification. And in People v. Cummings, the Illinois Supreme Court laid out another example of when requesting the driver’s identification becomes an unlawful search and seizure.

Search and Seizure During Illinois Traffic Stop

In People v. Cummings, a police officer driving behind Mr. Cummings suspected that the vehicle’s registration had expired. A quick computer check showed that the registration was valid. However, it also showed that the car’s registered owner – a female – had an outstanding warrant. The officer pulled the vehicle over and, upon approach, immediately realized that Mr. Cummings was male. The officer asked for Mr. Cummings’ identification anyway, at which point he discovered that Mr. Cummings had a suspended license. Cummings was later charged with a Class 4 felony.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the officer violated Mr. Cumming’s right against unlawful search and seizure. Pulling the car over was valid, since the computer check showed that the car’s registered owner had an outstanding warrant. However, the search also showed that the registered owner was a female. Once the police officer realized that the car’s driver was a male, the stop should have ended immediately.

By asking Mr. Cummings for his identification, when he had no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Cummings had committed, or was in the process of committing, a crime, the officer violated Mr. Cummings’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure. The court stated that “unless a request for identification is related to the reason for the stop, it impermissibly extends the stop and violates the Constitution.”

In this case, the purpose of the stop was to arrest the car’s registered owner on the outstanding warrant. Requesting Mr. Cummings’ identification, when he clearly was not the car’s registered owner, extended the stop beyond what the Fourth Amendment allows. If the driver had been female, requesting identification would have been acceptable – the officer did not know what the car’s registered owner looked like, and thus would have needed identification to verify her identity.

Chicago Search and Seizure Attorney

The ruling in People v. Cummings is specific to the facts of the case, which makes it very important that you contact an experienced criminal defense attorney if you were arrested following any type of police stop. If the officer’s actions exceeded their Fourth Amendment authority, it is possible to have the evidence tossed out, which may result in the charges against you being dropped. Continue reading

Contact Information
Chicago Office
70 W Madison St
#1450
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 560-7100
DuPage Office
140 Butterfield Rd
#1500
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Skokie Office
5250 Old Orchard Rd
#300
Skokie, IL 60077

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design