Chicago Criminal Lawyer Blog

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.

December 31, 2014

Cook County Man Charged with Promotion of Prostitution

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

A Lyons man was arrested last week and charged with two counts of promoting prostitution through a joint investigation by the Cook County Sheriff’s Vice Unit and the Berwyn Police Department. The alleged promotion of prostitution occurred on a website offering goods and services for sale.

Illinois Promotion of Prostitution

In Illinois a person commits the crime of promoting prostitution if he knowingly arranges, or offers to arrange “a situation in which a person may practice prostitution” and profits from his actions.

The word “knowingly” is important. Unless the prosecution can prove that the defendant knew he was arranging a situation where sex would be bought and sold, he cannot be convicted of promoting prostitution.

In a case like this, where the defendant was arrested based on information posted on a website, there are a number of different avenues the defense can explore that may cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. These may include:

Whether anybody else had access to the defendant’s computer. Posts to websites can normally be traced back to the user’s IP address. Using a team of computer experts, we could pinpoint the location of the computer which posted the ads, as well as the date and time of the postings, and determine who else may have had access to it. If the computer was the defendant’s, we would look at any roommates, friends or family members who may have had unrestricted access to it at the time the posts were made. If the posts were made at a public computer, such as a library, then proving the defendant made the posts would be extremely difficult, since any number of people could have accessed the computer.

What the defendant thought he was picking up. The defendant was arrested on his way to allegedly pick up proceeds from the prostitution operation. But the fact that he was on his way to a destination to pick up money doesn’t necessarily mean he knew what the money was for. He could have been told the money was a debt owed to the person he was getting it for. Or he may have been told that is was for the sale of an automobile or other property. He may not even have been told to pick up money, but rather simply to go and meet somebody at that location.

Whether any actual profit resulted from the alleged ads. A conviction for promoting prostitution requires that the defendant profited from the alleged prostitution. The defense would need to look closely at any money that the defendant made and whether the money came from payment for prostitution.

Whether the defendant had the means to offer prostitutes. Even if the defendant placed the ads, if he didn’t have the means to fulfill his offer, he cannot be convicted for promoting prostitution. For example, perhaps he was just pulling a prank and intended to video tape and post on social media any people who showed up with the intent of purchasing sex. Or perhaps he arranged to meet individuals who responded to the ads and intended to rob them of the money they had brought for payment. If the defendant did not have the ability to provide prostitutes to anybody who responded to the ads, the charges must be dismissed.

December 24, 2014

Conviction of Illinois Hate Crime Carries Additional Penalties

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

A Cook County man was arrested this past October and charged with attempted first-degree murder and hate crimes for allegedly stabbing a 79-year-old African-American woman.

Illinois Hate Crimes

When most people think of a hate crime, they think of an assault upon an African-American, maybe even a lesbian, gay or transgendered individual. But hate crimes under Illinois law may be committed against an individual due to his:

Race;
Color;
Creed;
Religion;
Ancestry;
Gender;
Sexual Orientation;
Physical or mental disability, or;
National origin.

Hate crimes include not only assault and battery, but also:

Theft;
Trespass to residence, vehicle or real property;
Damage to property;
Mob action;
Disorderly conduct, or;
Harassment by telephone or electronic communications.

Hate crimes are a class 4 felony – class 2 if it’s a second offense – and carry with it a minimum of one year in prison. Hate crimes are a class 3 felony if committed in certain locations, such as a school or church. The penalties imposed for conviction of a hate crime are in addition to those imposed for conviction of the underlying offense. The defendant in a hate crime case is charged then not only with the hate crime, but with the assault, battery, or whatever other crime committed against the victim as well.

Defenses Against Hate Crimes

There are two portions of a hate crime defense – defending against the underlying crime, and defending against the hate crime charge. When defending against a hate crime, it is actually not a defense that the victim was not a member of a protected class. For example, if the defendant attacked a man because he thought he was Muslim, but it turned out he was Indian, the mistake as to the victim’s actual ethnicity is not a defense to the charge. It is enough that the defendant thought he was attacking a Muslim.

In order to successfully defend against a hate crime, the defense attorney must prove that the crime was not racially motivated (assuming that he cannot disprove commission of the underlying crime). Just because a crime victim falls into the protected class of victims does not automatically mean it is a hate crime, although the prosecution may attempt to argue otherwise. Proving the crime was not motivated by hatred toward the victim’s race, sexual orientation, religion, or other protected class may include:

Showing a lack of history of any type of racial crime;
Showing that the crime was one of opportunity; for example, you robbed the woman on the street corner because she was there and you needed money, not because she was a woman;
Lack of use of racial, sexual or other slurs against the victim during the commission of the crime, or;
You have a prior history of committing the same offense, and there is no pattern of it being against members of the protected class.

Disproving that the crime was motivated by reasons unrelated to race, religion, gender, or any of the other protected classes will result in the jury being forced to acquit on the hate crime charge.

December 19, 2014

DuPage County Burglary and Retail Theft Raise Possibility of Avoiding Prison

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

A DuPage County couple was arrested and charged in early December with two counts each of burglary, and additional counts of retail theft, for allegedly stealing and selling more than $4,000 worth of merchandise from a string of DuPage County Walmart stores. The charges are Class 2 and Class 3 felonies, respectively. Police allege the couple stole and later sold the items to feed their drug addiction.

DuPage County Commercial Burglary Charge

In Illinois, burglary is committed when a person knowingly and without authority enters, or knowingly and without authority remains, within a building with the intent to commit theft or another felony within the building. Although most people consider burglary to be entering a residence with the intent to steal, a person can be charged with burglary if he enters a building with the intent to kill, rape, or commit any other felony.

December 17, 2014

White Chicago Police Officer Set to Stand Trial for Murder of Black Woman

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

In the wake of the police killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Eric Garner in New York and Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio, a Chicago police officer is set to stand trial in January on charges of involuntary manslaughter and other felonies in the 2012 off-duty shooting death of an unarmed black woman.

Police shootings happen fairly regularly across the country, and as part of their job to serve and protect officers often kill dangerous suspects. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports indicate that in 2013, there were 461 justifiable homicides by police officers. Some estimate this number to be much higher – at least 1,000 – because not all police departments report their numbers to the FBI for inclusion in the report. So when does murder by a Chicago police officer cross the line from justifiable homicide to murder?

Justifiable Homicide by Chicago Police

There is no special statute protecting Chicago police officers who kill a suspect in the line of duty. Like any other citizen, Chicago police officers must prove that their use of force was justified.

The use of justifiable force, as I have discussed before, is an affirmative defense. This means that the police officer has the burden of proving that his use of force was justified, and not the prosecutor. Under Illinois’ justifiable use of force law, a police officer may use force against another person if he reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or another person against the victim’s unlawful use of force. However, the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm can only be used if the officer has a reasonable belief that he is protecting himself or another person from death or great bodily harm.

It is important to note that the victim’s use of force must be unlawful, in order for force to be justified. This means that a person cannot put you in fear of your life, and then use deadly force against you when you try to protect yourself using force.

How does this translate to real life? Take, for example, the Eric Garner case. Most people do not dispute that he was resisting arrest. But from the video, he appeared to be doing so peacefully, and posed no physical threat to law enforcement. So the argument could be made that the police officer’s use of a banned chokehold was unlawful use of force, since there was no reasonable justification to believe that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm.

The vast majority of killings by Chicago police officers are ruled justifiable homicides and never brought to trial. The last case of a Chicago police officer facing criminal charges for a shooting death was 17 years ago. Defense in these cases rests entirely on the police officer’s testimony. Eyewitness testimony factors in to some degree, as would any available video. But in the end, the police officer’s testimony regarding his behavior and the victim’s behavior in the moments leading up to the shooting, and the officer’s level of perceived harm, is what the jury will ultimately rely on. And as is shown by the fact that it has been 17 years since the last Chicago police officer was brought to trial, in the vast majority of cases the benefit of the doubt goes to the officer.

December 12, 2014

Statute of Limitations in Chicago Rape Cases

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

It’s been a bad couple of weeks for America’s Dad, Bill Cosby. In the past month, at least 20 different women have come forward to say that Mr. Cosby had sexually molested, drugged and/or sexually assaulted them in incidents dating back as far as the 1970s. Just this week the Los Angeles Police Department met with one accuser, who claims Cosby sexually assaulted her when she was just 15 years old.

Can Charges be filed in Decades Old Chicago Rape Case?

The alleged sexual assaults in the Cosby case happened decades ago and, if true, the majority went unreported. If a Chicago resident were to claim she was sexually assaulted 15 years ago, is it possible for criminal charges to be filed against the accused?

Illinois law imposes statutes of limitations on all crimes except murder. Statutes of limitations are time limits imposed on the prosecution, requiring him to file charges against the accused within a stated time period. If charges are not filed within the specified time period, they can never be filed.

Statutes of limitations vary among crimes (they are also different for claims filed in civil court, so when looking up statutes of limitations make sure you are reading the criminal code). For the crime of sexual assault, the prosecution must file charges within 10 years of the commission of the offense, provided the victim reported it to the police within three years of its occurrence.

For example, imagine a woman who was raped on March 20, 1995. If she reports the rape to the police any time on or before March 20, 1998, the prosecution has until March 20, 2005 to bring charges against the alleged perpetrator. If, however, the woman reports the rape to police on March 31, 1998, the prosecution cannot file charges, because the law required her to have reported the rape within three years of its occurrence.

If the alleged sexual assault occurred when the victim was under 18 years of age, the prosecution has 20 years from the date the victim turns 18 to file charges. So, if a child was raped July 7, 1975 at the age of 8, the prosecution has until July 7, 2005 to file charges against the accused. If the charge was for misdemeanor criminal sexual abuse, the prosecution has 10 years from the date the victim turns 18 to bring charges.

So depending on when the woman reported the sexual assault and her age when it happened, it is possible for charges to be brought for a sexual assault that occurred a decade, possibly even three decades, ago. However, the likelihood of success in such an old case is slim. Witness memory fades and, without physical evidence, such as a rape kit or other DNA evidence, the case would be nothing more than he said-she said, which is difficult to prove over such a long period of time.

December 10, 2014

What is a Grand Jury and How Does it Work?

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

The recent announcement that the grand jury chose not to indict the Ferguson, Missouri police officer who shot and killed unarmed teenager Michael Brown this past summer on charges of first-degree murder or manslaughter raised many questions, the most troubling for many being, “Why shouldn’t Officer Wilson at least stand trial?”

Purpose of Chicago Grand Jury

It is often said that “a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.” And while this is not true, the statement comes from the fact that the burden of proof the prosecution must meet in a grand jury is different than the burden of proof the prosecution must meet in a criminal trial. At trial, the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

But in order for a grand jury to hand down an indictment, the prosecution must only prove that there is probable cause to show that the defendant committed the charged offense. If the grand jury finds that there is insufficient evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime, it will vote not to indict, and all charges against the defendant are dismissed.

The purpose of the grand jury, then, is not to decide the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant, although arguably, the fact that they found insufficient evidence to send the defendant to trial is tantamount to their profession of his innocence.

How the Grand Jury Works

The grand jury is similar to a jury in a criminal trial in that the jurors review evidence provided by the prosecutor and hear witness testimony. But in many ways it is quite different. Because the purpose of the proceeding is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to put the defendant on trial, and not to determine his guilt or innocence, only the prosecution puts on a case; the jurors never hear from the defense attorney.

In fact, a defense attorney is not present at the grand jury and, unless the prosecution plans to call him as a witness, neither is the defendant. Grand jury proceedings are secret, and the testimony, evidence and witnesses presented in the proceedings are also kept secret, unless ordered released by the judge or released by the prosecutor as part of his duties. Grand jury proceedings are so secret, that in some cases the person being indicted does not even know that he is the subject of a grand jury until the indictment is handed down.

All evidence, regardless of whether it will ultimately be admitted in court, is presented to the grand jury. The regular rules of evidence that apply to criminal trials are inapplicable in grand juries. And again, because the purpose of the grand jury is only to determine if there is enough evidence to support the idea that the defendant committed the charged crime, and not to prove his guilt or innocence, it does not matter whether the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unlawful search and seizures or any other law. Any evidence the prosecution has against the defendant is presented.

In addition to the evidence presented by the prosecution, the grand jury may consider information called to its attention by the court or learned in its investigation of other matters. The grand jury may also request permission to conduct its own investigation, including the right to subpoena witnesses or other documents.

December 5, 2014

Woman Charged with Attempted Kidnapping of Child at O’Hare Airport

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

In September a woman was charged with felony aggravated kidnapping and misdemeanor battery after allegedly trying to kidnap a two-year-old boy from the luggage carousel at O’Hare International Airport. According to the boy’s mother and eyewitnesses, the woman grabbed the boy and tried to flee down an escalator before being apprehended by authorities.

Chicago Kidnapping Charge

Under Illinois law there are several different means of committing the crime of kidnapping. In this case, the defendant fulfilled the portion of the law that makes it a crime to knowingly, and with force, carry a person from one place to another, with the intent to confine that person against his will. The crime was elevated to aggravated kidnapping because the child was under the age of 13.

You may wonder why the defendant in this case was charged with kidnapping, as opposed to attempted kidnapping. Authorities apprehended her within minutes of taking the child; in fact, she had not even removed the child from the airport. If the child was reunited with his mother within mere moments of the defendant grabbing him how could he have been kidnapped?

A kidnapping charge has nothing to do with the amount of time the child is separated from his parents, or even how far away he is being held. The crime of kidnapping is complete once the child is forcibly removed from one location to another. So even though in this case, the child was only moved from one end of the baggage claim to the other, the movement was enough to bring the charge of kidnapping.

Although stranger abductions of children are predominant in the news – think a child held by a non-family member or acquaintance, 50 miles or more from their home for at least one night – they make up less than 1% of all kidnappings. The majority of kidnappings involve family abductions or a child confined in one location for at least one hour. And “confinement” may be nothing more than sitting in the kidnapper’s house eating ice cream and playing video games.

In child abduction cases, it is not a defense that the child willingly accompanied the kidnapper. Under Illinois kidnapping law, confinement of a child under the age of 13 is considered to be done without parental consent, even if the child willingly accompanied the kidnapper. In such cases, the only defenses would be mistaken identity, or a misunderstanding as to whether the child’s parents consented to the “confinement.”

In the case of this defendant, her mother indicated that she had mental issues and had recently gone off her medication. It may be possible to argue that she is unfit to stand trial, enter a plea or be sentenced because she is “unable to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against (her) or to assist in (her) defense.”

If the defendant is found unfit to stand trial, either by the court or the jury, but there is a “substantial probability” that treatment can make the defendant fit to stand trial within a year, the court can order the defendant to undergo treatment for the purpose of making her fit for trial. If, however, the court or jury finds that there is not a substantial probability that the defendant will be fit for trial within a year even with treatment, the state may move to have the charges against the defendant dropped, or to have a discharge hearing, where the judge hears all evidence against the defendant and, if found guilty, can have her held in a treatment facility for up to two years (five if the charge was first-degree murder).

December 3, 2014

Chicago Police Storm Home, Arrest Man for Walking Down Street

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

A Southside Chicago man claims that Chicago police stormed his home, placed him in a chokehold and arrested him for doing nothing more than walking down the street. Police arrested the man on misdemeanor counts of battery, resisting arrest, and possession of a deadly weapon. The man’s niece captured the incident on her iPad.

Unlawful Chicago Search and Seizures

I have discussed extensively on this blog before about the right of Chicago residents to be free from unlawful search and seizures, or stop and frisk. While police have the right to address anybody on the street – even asking a person to “come here” – unless they have a reasonable belief that the individual has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, the person approached has the absolute right to completely ignore the police.

If this man’s story is true – that he did nothing more than ignore the police’s request that he “come here” after they pulled up alongside him – then the police grossly exceeded their authority. Ignoring a police inquiry does not give them the authority to conduct a stop and frisk. It certainly does not give them the right to follow the person to his home, storm his residence, and then charge him with resisting arrest. If the initial stop was unlawful which, if the facts alleged here are true, it was, then any search and arrest that followed were illegal, and all charges against the defendant must be dismissed.

Racial Profiling by Chicago Police

It is an unfortunate fact that racial profiling exists. Studies show that Chicago police officers repeatedly engage in racial profiling, particularly when it comes to traffic stops. The American Civil Liberties Union’s review of traffic stop data collected by the Illinois Department of Transportation shows that Chicago police officers are four times more likely to ask to search vehicles driven by African-American and Hispanic drivers than those driven by white motorists, despite the fact that illegal drugs or guns are found more frequently in the vehicles of white motorists.

Numerous anecdotal reports of racial profiling exist as well. Even the University of Chicago police department, a private force that has the full power of local police for the area it serves, has been accused of engaging in racial profiling.

Stopping an African-American, Hispanic or other ethnic minority based on a reasonable suspicion that he is engaged in illegal activity does not constitute racial profiling. Stopping an African-American, Hispanic or other ethnic minority simply because they are black and “all black men are criminals”, which appears to be the case in this incident, is racial profiling. A stop that is based solely on the color of one’s skin, without any other evidence to support a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, is illegal, and any search and arrest that follows must be dismissed.

November 26, 2014

Three Chicago Men Charged with Murder in Old Town Shooting

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

Three Chicago men were charged with murder for the shooting death of a Chicago resident recently. The men are accused of pulling up alongside the victim’s car and opening fire; the victim later died of a gunshot wound to his arm after trying to flee the scene.

Co-Defendants and the Felony Murder Rule

In August I discussed the case of a young Chicago boy who was charged with the murder of his friend, even though the friend was shot and killed by an off-duty Chicago police officer. The officer killed the victim during an attempted armed robbery. The defendant was charged with murder under what is known as the felony murder rule, which allows all persons involved in the commission of a felony to be charged with first-degree murder for any deaths that occur during the commission of the crime.

That same rule may apply to the defendants in this case. At present, they are each being held on charges of murder, though authorities have not yet determined (or have not yet made public) who the shooter was. Eyewitness statements indicate that a passenger was the shooter.

Whether or not the rule would apply in this case depends on if the defendants intended to commit a crime when the shooting occurred. For example, if they were driving around in the middle of the night looking for a person to rob, then they could all be charged with first-degree murder since the victim was killed while they attempted to carry out the robbery.

If, however, they were driving around aimlessly just to pass the time, as teenagers often do, and the driver and the second passenger had no idea that the shooter intended to fire at the victim when they stopped the car, then they have an argument for having the murder charges dismissed or reduced.

Weapons were found in the vehicle when the boys were arrested, but carrying weapons does not prove intent to commit a crime. They could be charged with fleeing the scene, obstruction of justice, or other crimes, but if there is no evidence that they intended to commit a felony, or that they knew the shooter planned to commit a felony, then they cannot be charged with murder under the felony murder rule.

Plea Bargain in Chicago Cases Involving Multiple Defendants

Cases involving multiple defendants offer an increased opportunity to strike a plea deal with the prosecution, especially in murder cases where one person was ultimately responsible for the victim’s death. The co-defendants may be able to offer testimony showing that the shooter had a prior beef with the victim, and that the murder was premeditated. In exchange for such testimony, the prosecution may be willing to reduce the first-degree murder charges against the two co-defendants not involved in the shooting, because the testimony raises the probability of winning a first-degree murder conviction against the shooter.

In these cases, having a criminal defense attorney who has established good working relationships with Chicago prosecutors is vital.