Drug Crimes

June 12, 2015

Chicago Drug Crimes Conviction Can Lead to Deportation

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

If you are convicted of a Chicago drug crime, whether misdemeanor or felony, you face a lengthy prison sentence and hefty fines. If you are not an American citizen, whether an illegal immigrant or a lawful permanent resident, you also face the possibility of being deported.

Deportation for Drug Crimes Conviction

The United States federal code allows for the deportation of any alien convicted of conspiracy to violate, attempted violation or violation of a state controlled substance law (other than a single offense of possession of less than 30 grams of personal use marijuana) that relates to a federally banned substance. The federal code outlines specific substances that are considered controlled substances that could lead to deportation.

This is an important distinction in the law. State and federal law are not always in lock-step regarding what is considered a controlled substance. If an illegal immigrant is convicted of a drug crime under state law, and the controlled substance is not included under the federal controlled substance list, the illegal immigrant is not eligible for deportation.

The United States Supreme Court recently made another distinction under the law. In order to be a deportable offense, the underlying charge must specifically state the controlled substance banned under federal law. In Mellouli v. Lynch, the defendant was convicted of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. The paraphernalia in this case was a sock that contained four unnamed pills. Neither the initial charge nor the ultimate plea agreement made specific reference to the controlled substance that was in the defendant’s possession at the time of arrest.

The court ruled that in order to trigger the deportation law, it must be made clear at some point what federally banned controlled substance the defendant had in his possession. Laws must be taken at face value, meaning when the court is interpreting a vague or otherwise ambiguous law, it cannot consider what it thinks the drafters of the law meant. They may only be guided by the literal letter of the law.

Based on prior rulings, the court ruled that they must take the conviction at face value and could not be held responsible for looking into the underlying facts. Thus, police and forensic reports may have indicated what pills were in the defendant’s sock, and reading those reports would have allowed the court to check the federal controlled substance law to see if the drug was included. But that is the responsibility of the police and prosecutor, not the court. Without the substance named, the court ruled the defendant could not be deported.

In terms of defense of drug crimes, the case seemingly has little to no impact on the role of a criminal defense attorney. Yet the case is likely to make prosecutors look more closely at charging documents and plea agreements to ensure that all drug crimes cases are linked to federally banned substances, to ensure that the immigration department has an easier path to deportation, should it choose that option. In that sense, it makes it that much more important to retain the services of an experienced Chicago drug crimes attorney to help win an acquittal or dismissal of all charges, so that deportation is not an option.

May 8, 2015

Decriminalization of Marijuana One Step Closer in Illinois

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

The Illinois House of Representatives passed a bill that would decriminalize possession of marijuana. Passage comes on the heels of a recent announcement made by Cook County state’s attorney Anita Alvarez that her office will no longer prosecute minor pot cases. The bill must pass the Senate before being transmitted to the governor’s desk for signature.

Low-level Possession of Marijuana Crimes in Illinois

If passed by the Senate and ultimately signed in to law by Governor Rauner, the law would not only decriminalize possession of low-levels of marijuana, but would create consistency between state law and public ordinances.

Current Illinois law classifies possession of between 2.5 and 30 grams of marijuana as a Class A, B or C misdemeanor, depending on the amount the defendant possessed at the time of arrest. A second or higher arrest for possession being is upgraded to a Class 4 felony. Penalties for conviction range from 30 up to one year in jail and fines ranging from $1,500 to $2,500.

Under the proposed law, Chicago residents could legally possess up to 25 grams of marijuana, and the penalty for being caught in possession would be no worse than a traffic ticket – no jail time, and a maximum $125 fine.

The law is addressed at growing recognition that prosecution for low-level misdemeanor cases is a waste of the court’s already stretched and limited resources and serves no real purpose, as the majority of offenders are non-violent, recreational users who pose no threat to the public. But it will also make penalties for misdemeanor possession crimes uniform across the state.

Under the present system, a person in any city or county across the state can be arrested for possession of 5 grams of marijuana. But whether or not that person is prosecuted depends on where the arrest was made.

If the arrest is made in Chicago, as of now there will be no prosecution for misdemeanor possession. According to the Cook County state’s attorney’s office, all such cases will be dismissed. Those arrested and charged with a Class 4 felony in Cook County will be diverted to an alternative program that seeks to rehabilitate chronic drug abusers, rather than throw them in prison where they will receive little to no treatment for their addiction.

The same person arrested in another city, however, for possession of 5 grams of marijuana could be placed in jail for up to 30 days and face a fine of $1,500. And if he is a repeat offender, whereas the city of Chicago would offer him treatment in an effort to break the cycle of addiction, another city could place him in jail for up to a year, only to have him be released and fall right back into the cycle.

In order to be effective laws must be applied uniformly. And basic fairness requires that a person should not be subject to criminal punishment for engaging in behavior in one city that is perfectly legal in the next. Continue reading

January 6, 2015

DuPage County Woman Charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance

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

A Villa Nova woman was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance after accepting delivery of almost 700 Xanax pills. The arrest was made through the combined efforts of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Postal Service and the DuPage County Sheriff’s Office.

DuPage Possession of a Controlled Substance

Drug crimes require an aggressive defense, and that defense must begin immediately. In any criminal case, there are certain procedures law enforcement must follow in order to ensure that each defendant is afford a fair trial. One of the most important is the fundamental right against unlawful searches and seizures, and law enforcement’s motivation and justification for initiating a search is the most important aspect of any drug crimes defense.

In this case, there are a number of concerns regarding the arrest and subsequent search of the defendant’s residence.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol intercepted a package addressed to the defendant containing the Xanax. Undercover officers then proceeded to deliver the package to the defendant’s home and, when she accepted it, immediately arrested her for possession of a controlled substance. It is unclear whether the defendant did any more than simply accept the package; if that is all she did, it is very alarming that she was promptly arrested without any further action on her part. Just because the package was addressed to her does not mean she knew it contained 700 Xanax pills and, in order to be charged with possession, the defendant’s possession must have been knowing. A roommate, friend or family member could have arranged for it to be delivered to her house for their own personal use, and simply addressed it to her so she could accept it. The defendant could not be said to be in possession of the Xanax if she had no idea what was in the package; in such a case, she would have just been in possession of a package delivered to her.

There is, of course, also the possibility that she had a valid prescription for the pills and got them filled out of the U.S. because she had no health insurance and it was cheaper to purchase them elsewhere than have the prescription filled at a local pharmacy.

Next is the search of defendant and her home. Police are able to conduct a search incident to arrest, without the need to first obtain a search warrant. The purpose of the search is to ensure officer safety and prevent the destruction of evidence. However, a search incident to arrest is limited, generally to an area within the defendant’s reach. Since the defendant accepted the package at her front door, law enforcement was legally permitted to search that area within her immediate reach; a search of the entire residence seems beyond the scope of her reach.

However, in this instance it appears that the defendant’s home was searched pursuant to a search warrant. A thorough review of the search warrant, as well as the evidence provided to the judge who issued the warrant, is very important. As I said, the fact that the pills were addressed to the defendant is not enough to prove that she knew what was in the package or had in any way arranged for it to be delivered to her. Because the package could have been sent, unbeknownst to her, by a friend, family member or roommate who planned to pick it up after it had been delivered, the fact that the police was able to get a search warrant is suspect. They could have delivered the package and conducted surveillance, or even gotten a warrant to tap her phone for a limited time to see if she made any calls regarding the pills, before being issued a warrant to search her home.

The circumstances surrounding law enforcement’s acquisition of the search warrant and their immediate arrest of the defendant would all need to be thoroughly examined in order to determine whether police violated the defendant’s right to be free from unlawful search and seizures.

November 14, 2014

Chicago Man Violates Terms of Bond, Faces Additional Charges

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

A Chicago man out on bond was arrested last week and charged with unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, cocaine possession and marijuana possession. The defendant was arrested after Sheriff’s Office personnel noticed crack cocaine on a plate on the defendant’s dining room floor; a subsequent search uncovered a fully loaded AK-47 and a .357 revolver and marijuana.

Search Incident to Electronic Monitoring Violation

Sheriff’s Office personnel came to the defendant’s home after his electronic monitoring device indicated that he was out past curfew. Upon arriving, Sheriff’s Office personnel determined that the defendant had had a legitimate reason for having left the residence. They then entered his home.

At this point you may be thinking, “Wait, don’t the police need a search warrant to enter a person’s home?” Under normal circumstances, you would be correct. Except in certain instances – such as when an officer has probable cause to suspect illegal activity – a police officer may not search a person or his home without first obtaining a search warrant from the court.

But in this case, the defendant was on electronic monitoring as part of his bond requirements for an unrelated drug possession charge. And in order to participate in electronic home monitoring, defendants must consent to allow Sheriff’s Office personnel entry into their home at any time. So when officers showed up at the defendant’s door, he had no choice but to let them in, or else risk being in violation of the terms of his release.

Now this does not mean that officers had the right to search his home. And in fact had they completed a search of his home, after determining that the defendant was authorized to have left the home, the drugs and gun paraphernalia they uncovered would likely be inadmissible in court. Unfortunately for the defendant, the crack cocaine was sitting right there, in plain view on the defendant’s dining room floor – and police officers do not need a warrant of any kind to make an arrest for illegal activity being conducted in plain view.

Once the defendant was arrested for possession of crack cocaine, the police were authorized to search the remainder of his home as a search incident to arrest. This doctrine permits law enforcement to conduct a search to make sure there are no weapons in the defendant’s immediate control that could be used to harm officers and to uncover additional evidence of illegal activity related to that already uncovered.

Chicago Conditions of Release

This case helps illustrate how an experienced defense attorney can skillfully negotiate anything from conditions of release to a plea deal with probation, but in the end that time and effort can be quickly undone if the defendant does not use common sense and stays out of trouble. This is particularly true when the defendant is release on electronic monitoring, where part of the conditions of release include consent for law enforcement officers to enter the defendant’s home at any time.

For this particular defendant, and many more like him, it is going to be that much harder for his criminal defense attorney to successfully negotiate a similar bond release, and bolsters the prosecution’s case for the initial drug charge. The criminal defense attorney and the defendant are a team working to achieve the best possible result, whether that is an outright dismissal of all charges, an acquittal, or a reduction in charges or reduced sentencing. But in order for the criminal defense attorney to be successful, the defendant must not do anything to jeopardize his defense.

August 4, 2014

Conspiracy to Commit Chicago Drug Crimes Result in Harsher Penalties

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

The hit Netflix show “Orange is the New Black” is loosely based on the real-life story of Piper Kerman, who was charged with drug smuggling, money laundering and criminal conspiracy to import heroin. Kerman was sentenced by a Chicago federal judge to 15 months in a federal women’s prison.

Chicago Drug Conspiracy Crimes

In Illinois drug conspiracy is defined as two or more people conspiring to distribute, possess or deliver a controlled substance. In addition, the conspirators must earn more than $500.

Tacking on a conspiracy charge to any underlying criminal charge increases the severity of the case, especially when the underlying charge is for a drug crime. For example, a conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine carries the possibility of 4 to 50 years in prison, depending on the amount intended for distribution. Tack on a conviction for drug conspiracy, which is a Class X felony, and you are facing a possible sentence of up to 60 years in prison, without the possibility of parole. All because you conspired with one or more people to distribute.

A drug conspiracy charge requires an aggressive defense. At minimum, the Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C., will work to have the conspiracy charge dismissed, or gain an outright acquittal. To build a successful defense against a Chicago drug conspiracy charge, a skilled criminal defense attorney and a team of forensic experts will examine:

Statements made by co-conspirators incriminating you in the alleged conspiracy;
Whether co-conspirators were given immunity or promised reduced charges or sentences in exchange for their testimony;
Whether there was an actual co-conspirator, or was the other person (or persons) an undercover officer or a police informant;
Whether you ever did anything, by word or action, to renounce participation in the alleged conspiracy before the underlying drug crimes were committed;
Whether the prosecution can prove that you were actively involved in the conspiracy, and not merely aware of the details;
Whether any of the alleged co-conspirators’ statements were obtained in violation of the Miranda warnings;
Whether any evidence supporting the alleged conspiracy was illegally obtained; and
Whether the alleged conspiracy was actually formulated enough to allow the underlying drug crime to take place.

If a review of the evidence shows that it will be difficult to obtain an outright acquittal on the drug conspiracy charge, an attorney will work with the prosecution to enter into a plea agreement or to have the drug conspiracy charge dismissed in exchange for your cooperation. Negotiations with the prosecution to obtain leniency may include:

Your promise to testify against other co-conspirators;
Providing the prosecution with details pertaining to commission of the underlying crime, if it has not yet been committed;
Telling the prosecution the location of physical evidence that will strengthen their case against the co-conspirators; and
Providing the prosecution with the names of other co-conspirators whom the police have not yet discovered.

May 4, 2014

Illinois Appellate Court Overturns Conviction Due to Unlawful Search and Seizure

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

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.

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

April 26, 2014

Defense Against Illinois Drug Possession with Intent to Deliver

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

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

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

April 13, 2014

Illinois May Decriminalize Possession of Small Amounts of Marijuana

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

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.

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

March 22, 2014

Chicago Criminal Defense of Stop and Frisk

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

It’s a hot Chicago night, and you and some friends are outside, laughing and joking in an attempt to beat the summer heat. Two police officers approach and ask what’s going on. Not wanting trouble, you and your buddies turn and walk away. The officer repeats his question, a bit louder now, and the officers quickens their pace. Scared, you and your friends begin to run. The cops quickly follow, and when you’re detained they frisk everybody and find marijuana in your back pocket. Suddenly, what started as a fun night with friends ends with you in the back of a police cruiser, charged with possession of marijuana.

Unfortunately these types of stop and frisks are all too common, especially in Chicago’s high crime areas. If you’re arrested following a stop and frisk, you need an experienced criminal defense attorney to closely examine your case to determine whether the police’s actions were lawful.

Police Right to Stop and Frisk in Chicago

Police officers have the right to stop and question any person they encounter, provided they have a reasonable suspicion that the individual was engaged in criminal activity. This means the officer must be able to clearly explain why he believed criminal activity was happening; he cannot simply make a stop based on a hunch or intuition. These are known as Terry stops, after the United States Supreme Court case that authorized these investigatory stops.

The officer may perform a frisk (or protective pat down) only if he has reasonable grounds to believe the individual is armed. Even then, the pat down can only be of those areas on the body where a weapon could be hidden.

Just hanging out on the street corner is not generally enough to authorize the police to stop and question you. But in 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Illinois v. Wardlow that the police can consider the individual’s behavior in context of the location when deciding whether there is reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop. Suddenly, hanging out on the street in a known drug area became suspicious – bad news for the many law-abiding Chicago residents living in such areas.

Defending Against Chicago Stop and Frisk Arrest

There are many considerations that come in to play if you are arrested following a stop and frisk. Were you doing anything that could give rise to a reasonable suspicion that you were engaged in criminal activity? Were you in an area known for high criminal activity? Were you acting in a manner that made it appear you were engaged in criminal activity – pacing back and forth, looking at your watch repeatedly, or staying in the same location for a lengthy period of time?

Your behavior on the night of the arrest, as well as the location where it occurred, must be examined closely to determine if either of them could have given the police reasonable suspicion that you were committing – or about to commit – a crime. If the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop you, the criminal case can be dismissed.

If the stop did rise to the level of reasonable suspicion (and even if it did not), the resulting frisk must also be closely examined to determine whether it exceeded the police’s authority. The police may only frisk on top of clothing, and they cannot pull out or manipulate anything they feel during the pat down unless it is reasonably clear from feel that it was a weapon or drugs. It would be hard for police to determine through a pat down that the small lump they felt in your pants pocket was marijuana. If we can show that the police’s discovery of evidence during a pat down exceeded their authority, the criminal case can be dismissed. Continue reading

July 17, 2013

Chicago Arrest News – What to do When a Loved One Has Been Arrested in Chicago

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

It is always a shock to hear about a friend or family member who has been arrested. While we assume that our friend will be treated as “innocent until proven guilty”, this is not necessarily the reality in every situation. Many times, police officers and detectives alike will take advantage of a person’s lack of experience with the criminal justice system, which could lead to the inadvertent disclosure of incriminating information. Moreover, they also regularly fail to inform people as to the full scope of their rights, including their right to have an attorney present during various stages of the legal process (i.e. during interrogation and police line-up, etc.). If you find out that someone you love has been arrested, it is crucial to consider the following steps to help them protect their legal rights:

Obtain as much information as possible. The first thing you need to do is to find out where your loved one is being held. If he or she doesn’t know, then contact your local police department to see if they can help you locate them. When you speak with your loved one, find out what the charges are but do not allow them to tell you what happened. Your phone conversation could be recorded and held against your loved one later on.
Encourage your loved one to remain silent and to request an attorney. Don’t let your loved one make any statements or submit to any tests without the presence of an experienced Chicago criminal defense attorney. Also, it is important to advise the police officer or detective to not speak with your loved one until his or her attorney is present.
Take detailed notes. Be sure to write everything down, including the time that you were informed of your love one’s arrest and thereafter. This will not only help you keep things straight during this stressful time, it will also help your loved one’s attorney get the facts and start working on your defense.
Find a competent criminal defense attorney. As soon as you find out that your loved one has been arrested, it is crucial to find an experienced criminal defense attorney to help protect their legal rights. Do not hire the first attorney that comes along. Make sure that the attorney with whom you meet is familiar with the criminal justice system and, who knows the judges and applicable court of your jurisdiction. Having this level of familiarity can make a huge difference in your case.
Post bond. In most cases, a criminal judge will determine the appropriate amount of bail following your loved one’s arrest. Specifically, bail guarantees that your loved one will appear in all court proceedings following his or her release from jail. Jail bonds are available to cover the bail amount, get your loved one out of jail, and enable them to seek immediate legal representation.
Be wary of any deals that are offered, including those that seem too good to be true. Many times, various people involved in the interrogation process will attempt to make promises in order to influence your loved one to talk. However, it is crucial to realize that these individuals may not actually possess the requisite authority for their promises to hold any weight. With this in mind, do not accept any plea bargains or promises until an attorney has become involved in your case. He or she will certainly be able to “see through” these unfair police tactics and guide you accordingly. Continue reading