DISORDERLY CONDUCT: MAKING THREATS AGAINST A SCHOOL IN ILLINOIS

Posted on November 9, 2018 by admin

In these times of highly publicized school shootings, it is no surprise that authorities take any threats against a school extremely seriously. In Illinois, such threats may be charged as disorderly conduct. Under 720 ILCS 5/26-1(a)(3.5), you commit disorderly conduct when you knowingly transmit or cause to be transmitted a threat of destruction of school property, or a threat of violence, death, or bodily harm directed against persons at a school. Such a violation is a Class 4 Felony punishable by one to four years in prison.

In a recent Illinois case, People v. Khan, a defendant posted on Facebook that he brought a gun to his college every day and that someone would anger him and “end up in the bag.” The defendant argued that his statement was ambiguous, and the jury could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that it referred to a violent act. The court disagreed stating the jury was not “required to ignore common sense and defer to the ridiculous.”

If you are charged with disorderly conduct for threatening a school, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case for its best possible defense. Can the state prove all the elements of your offense beyond a reasonable doubt? Were you knowingly making a threat? Maybe you were being ironic? Even if the evidence against you is overwhelming, an attorney who is respected in the court house may be able to negotiate a more favorable plea agreement than you could on your own.

If you have questions about this or another related Illinois criminal or traffic matter, please contact Matt Keenan at 847-568-0160 or email matt@mattkeenanlaw.com.

(Besides Skokie, Matt Keenan also serves the communities of Arlington Heights, Chicago, Deerfield, Des Plaines, Evanston, Glenview, Morton Grove, Mount Prospect, Niles, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Rolling Meadows, Wilmette and Winnetka.)

Posted in disorderly conduct, school property, threats against school | Leave a comment

THE ILLINOIS CYBERSTALKING LAW: DEFENSES TO USE OF A TRACKING SOFTWARE

Posted on October 31, 2018 by admin

You didn’t want your ex- to think they could outsmart you. So you placed an electronic tracking device on their phone. In so doing, you have violated the Illinois cyberstalking law, which prohibits knowingly, surreptitiously, and without lawful justification, placing electronic monitoring software on an electronic communication device as a means of harassing another person.

However, you may have a defense. There are two exceptions to this rule:

1) The software installer gave clear notice regarding the use of the specific type of tracking software or spyware in advance to the device’s owner or primary user.

2) You obtained written or electronic consent of all owners and primary users of the device on which the tracking software is installed. However, you must have sought the consent through a mechanism that does not seek to obtain any other approvals from the owner or primary user.

Under the law, an electronic communication device may include a wireless telephone, personal digital assistant, or a portable or mobile computer. Electronic monitoring software means any software or application that surreptitiously tracks computer activity and then records and transmits the information to third parties with the intent to cause injury or harm.

Apart from the above defenses, can the state prove you acted knowingly or that you used the device to harass your ex-?

If you have been charged with cyberstalking, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case for its possible defense. As with most crimes, the state must prove you guilty of all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Can the state prove your use of the tracking software was surreptitious? Even if the evidence against you is overwhelming, an attorney who is respected in the court house may be able to negotiate a more favorable plea agreement than you could on your own.

If you have questions about this or another related Illinois criminal or traffic matter, please contact Matt Keenan at 847-568-0160 or email matt@mattkeenanlaw.com.

Source: Illinois Cyberstalking Law.

(Besides Skokie, Matt Keenan also serves the communities of Arlington Heights, Chicago, Deerfield, Des Plaines, Evanston, Glenview, Morton Grove, Mount Prospect, Niles, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Rolling Meadows, Wilmette and Winnetka.)

Posted in cyberstalking, tracking device, tracking software | Leave a comment

THE CRIME OF POSSESSING A METHAMPHETAMINE PRECURSOR IN ILLINOIS

Posted on October 17, 2018 by admin

Under certain circumstances having a box of Sudafed can turn into a Class 4 felony.

In Illinois, you may not knowingly purchase, receive, own or otherwise possess any product that contains a methamphetamine precursor if you already have been convicted or have received supervision for a methamphetamine offense.

However, there is one exception to this law. You can still get that box of Sudafed if it has been properly prescribed.

If you have been charged with a crime, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case for its best possible defense. Did the police have probable cause to search for the drugs? The state must also prove all the elements of your offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Can the state prove you had a prior methamphetamine offense? Did you have a valid prescription?

Even if the police acted lawfully and the evidence against you is overwhelming, an attorney who is respected in the court house may be able to negotiate a more favorable plea agreement than you could on your own.

If you have questions about this or another related Illinois criminal or traffic matter, please contact Matt Keenan at 847-568-0160 or email matt@mattkeenanlaw.com.

Source: Methamphetamine and Community Protection Act.

(Besides Skokie, Matt Keenan also serves the communities of Arlington Heights, Chicago, Deerfield, Des Plaines, Evanston, Glenview, Morton Grove, Mount Prospect, Niles, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Rolling Meadows, Wilmette and Winnetka.)

Posted in methamphetamine, methamphetamine precursor | Leave a comment

THE CRIME OF SEXTING IN ILLINOIS

Posted on October 8, 2018 by admin

Texting can be a little too easy and nearly instantaneous. If you are angry or otherwise impaired, there isn’t much standing between you and your own bad judgment. So you hit send on that ill-advised message and the next thing you knew, the police were at your door.

In Illinois, you sext when you send messages or use obscene, lewd or immoral language with the intent to offend by means of the telephone. Your intent to offend can be inferred from your use of obscene, lewd or immoral language. (See Illinois Transmission of Obscene Messages Law).

A first sexting offense is a Class B Misdemeanor. However, later offenses can be charged as a Class A Misdemeanor with a minimum of 14 days in jail. Under certain circumstances, sexting may become a Class 4 felony, for example, if you threatened to kill the victim, you were on probation at the time, or you had 3 or more similar violations within a 10 year period. Further, it is a Class 4 felony if you, as an adult, sext someone under age.

If you have been charged with sexting, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case for its best possible defense. As with most crimes, the state must prove all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Can the state prove that you intended to offend? Was the language you used truly lewd or obscene? Even if the evidence against you is overwhelming, an attorney who is respected in the courthouse may be able to negotiate a more favorable plea agreement than you could on your own.

If you have questions about this or another related Illinois criminal or traffic matter, please contact Matt Keenan at 847-568-0160 or email matt@mattkeenanlaw.com.

(Besides Skokie, Matt Keenan also serves the communities of Arlington Heights, Chicago, Deerfield, Des Plaines, Evanston, Glenview, Morton Grove, Mount Prospect, Niles, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Rolling Meadows, Wilmette and Winnetka.)

Posted in obscene communication, obscene phonecall, sexting | Leave a comment

CAN YOUR ROOMMATE LET POLICE SEARCH YOUR HOUSE?

Posted on October 1, 2018 by admin

The police came to your home while you were away. Police asked your roommate if they could search your room, and he said, “Sure, why not?” As a result, police found drugs under your mattress. Now you are under arrest.

Is your roommate’s consent to the search legal?

Under the Fourth Amendment, police may not search your home without a warrant unless they have a valid exception such as consent. Consent may be given by someone with either actual or apparent authority. Your roommate has actual authority to allow the police in to the areas that the roommate rents or occupies. But what about your areas? Does your roommate have the apparent authority required to let the police into your room?

Apparent authority exists if the facts available to an officer at the time of a search would allow a person of reasonable caution to believe that the consenting party had authority over the property to be searched. When the consenting party is your spouse, the law presumes that the spouse has authority to allow a search of all areas in your homestead.

In People v Mojica, the defendant’s wife allowed the police to search his detached garage. The defendant argued that no reasonable officer could believe that his wife had apparent authority where she did not have a key and had not entered the garage for some time. The court rejected defendant’s argument. The wife never told police she was denied access to the garage. The officer could reasonably believe that as a spouse, the wife had authority to enter the garage but rarely choose to do so.

In another Illinois case, the defendant’s girlfriend allowed officers to search his coat in a shared closet. The court held that the officers could reasonably believe that the girlfriend had apparent authority to consent. The closet was not locked or private but held the apartment’s washer and dryer and was accessible to all eight residents of the home. (See People v. Burton, 409 Ill. App. 3d 321, 349 Ill. Dec. 829, 947 N.E.2d 843 (2011).)

Illinois courts have rejected apparent authority where a driver consented to the search of a passenger’s purse or where defendant’s social guest gave the consent. (See People v James and People v. Pickens, 275 Ill. App. 3d 108, 211 Ill. Dec. 823, 655 N.E.2d 1206 (1995).)

If you have been charged with a crime, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case for its best possible defense. Perhaps the person consenting to the search did not have authority—either actual or apparent—to do so. If so, an attorney can petition the court to suppress the evidence from the search.

. Even if the police acted properly and the evidence against you is overwhelming, an attorney who is respected in the court house may be able to negotiate a more favorable plea agreement than you could on your own.

If you have questions about this or another related Illinois criminal or traffic matter, please contact Matt Keenan at 847-568-0160 or email matt@mattkeenanlaw.com.

(Besides Skokie, Matt Keenan also serves the communities of Arlington Heights, Chicago, Deerfield, Des Plaines, Evanston, Glenview, Morton Grove, Mount Prospect, Niles, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Rolling Meadows, Wilmette and Winnetka.)

Posted in actual authority, apparent authority, consent, consent to search | Leave a comment

DID YOU KNOW WHAT YOU WERE DOING? THE DEFINITION OF INTENTIONAL CONDUCT IN ILLINOIS

Posted on September 24, 2018 by admin

If you are charged with a crime, the state must prove all the elements of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Most offenses require that you had the mental intent to commit the crime. In other words, you must have acted knowingly.

A recent Illinois case demonstrates how this works. In People v Jackson, the defendant was accused of battery and resisting a peace officer. Both offenses require the state to prove that the defendant acted knowingly. Battery occurs when you knowingly makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with another and without legal justification. (720 ILCS 5/12-3(a)(2).) Resisting a peace officer occurs when you knowingly resist the performance by someone that you know is a peace officer. (720 ILCS 5/31-1(a).)

Illinois law defines “knowingly” to mean that you are consciously aware that your conduct is practically certain to cause a particular result. (720 ILCS 5/4-5(b).) Knowing may be proven by circumstantial evidence and inferred from your actions and the conduct surrounding them.

The defendant in the above case claimed he was having an epileptic seizure. The state’s witnesses testified that the defendant was not behaving normally in that the defendant continued to call 911 even though paramedics and an ambulance were already on the scene.

The defendant did not present evidence as to his mental state at trial. But, the court noted that he did not need to do so. The state had the burden of proof and failed to show the defendant acted knowingly.

If you have been charged with a crime, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case for its best possible defense. Can the state prove all the elements of the offense? Even if the evidence against you is overwhelming, an attorney who is respected in the court house may be able to negotiate a more favorable plea agreement than you could on your own.

If you have questions about this or another related Illinois criminal or traffic matter, please contact Matt Keenan at 847-568-0160 or email matt@mattkeenanlaw.com.

(Besides Skokie, Matt Keenan also serves the communities of Arlington Heights, Chicago, Deerfield, Des Plaines, Evanston, Glenview, Morton Grove, Mount Prospect, Niles, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Rolling Meadows, Wilmette and Winnetka.)

Posted in battery, knowingly, mens rea, resisting a peace officer | Leave a comment

CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN ILLINOIS

Posted on September 14, 2018 by admin

After a search of your home or car, the police find a bag of something illegal. How can you be sure that the bag from your arrest is the same bag produced at trial?

If you watch police shows, you have probably heard the expression “chain of custody.” In order to use evidence against you, the state must demonstrate the chain of custody between the police search and your trial.

For items with unique characteristics that are not easily changed, tampered with or contaminated, the State may simply present testimony that the item is in substantially the same condition as it was when taken. But for items such as narcotics or blood, the state must show that any tampering or accidental substitution was unlikely. Once the state does this, you may challenge the state by showing actual evidence of tampering, alteration, or substitution.

If you have been charged with a crime, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case for its best possible defense. If the evidence in your case was mishandled, an attorney may be able to petition the court to suppress it. Even if the police acted properly and the evidence against you is overwhelming, an attorney who is respected in the court house may be able to negotiate a more favorable plea agreement than you could on your own.

If you have questions about this or another related Illinois criminal or traffic matter, please contact Matt Keenan at 847-568-0160 or email matt@mattkeenanlaw.com.

Source: People v Trice.

(Besides Skokie, Matt Keenan also serves the communities of Arlington Heights, Chicago, Deerfield, Des Plaines, Evanston, Glenview, Morton Grove, Mount Prospect, Niles, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Rolling Meadows, Wilmette and Winnetka.)

Posted in chain of custody, evidence | Leave a comment

WHAT IS DISTURBING THE PEACE UNDER ILLINOIS DISORDERLY CONDUCT LAW?

Posted on September 9, 2018 by admin

You were standing on the street yelling obscenities when the police arrived. Is this disorderly conduct under Illinois law? Maybe yes, maybe no. The answer depends on all the facts.

To be convicted of disturbing the peace under the Illinois Disorderly Conduct statute, the State must prove that you knowingly acted in such an unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace.

To determine exactly what that all means, a court reviews all the surrounding facts and circumstances of your case. The disorderly conduct law’s main purpose is to guard against molesting or harassing another, either mentally or physically, without justification. Therefore, your conduct must generally threaten another or have an effect on others. There need not be overt threats or abusive language, and your conduct need not be made in public.

In People v Steger, the defendant merely stood for a few minutes outside of his ex-girlfriend’s house. The court found this was enough to convict defendant. The parties had a history of tension involving custody of their minor child. For that reason, custody exchanges took place at a neutral site. Under these circumstances, defendant’s standing across from the victim’s house provoked a breach of the peace.

However, the court did not find disorderly conduct in People v. Bradshaw, where the defendant stood outside a tavern yelling obscenities. Since no one had left the tavern, the court reasoned that defendant did not provoke a breach of the peace.

If you have been accused of disorderly conduct, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. Because the definition of disturbing the peace can be so fact specific, it is imperative that you do not try to talk your way out of your situation. You will likely only dig yourself in deeper. An attorney can review the facts to present your defense in its best possible light.

If you have questions about this or another related Illinois criminal or traffic matter, please contact Matt Keenan at 847-568-0160 or email matt@mattkeenanlaw.com.

(Besides Skokie, Matt Keenan also serves the communities of Arlington Heights, Chicago, Deerfield, Des Plaines, Evanston, Glenview, Morton Grove, Mount Prospect, Niles, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Rolling Meadows, Wilmette and Winnetka.)

Posted in disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace | Leave a comment

THE POLICE FORCED ME TO TALK: THE ISSUE OF VOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS IN ILLINOIS

Posted on August 20, 2018 by admin

Being taken into police custody is a stressful event–especially when you are suspected of a crime. And the police don’t exactly want to make it comfortable. But when does police pressure cross the line so that the statements you made are no longer voluntary?

The test for voluntariness depends on whether you decided to talk freely without compulsion or inducement or whether your will was overborne at the relevant time. A court will consider all the circumstances surrounding your statements, including your age, intelligence, education, experience, and physical condition, the length of the interrogation, whether you received Miranda warnings, the presence of any physical or mental abuse and the legality and length of your being held in police custody.

In People v Mandoline, the court applied the above factors to determine that a defendant’s statement had been voluntary. The defendant was 23 years old, a high school graduate with some college education who had little experience with law enforcement. While the defendant had had a headache and had drank a considerable amount of beer, he appeared alert and did not seem intoxicated. The three-hour long interrogation was relatively brief as prior Illinois law had held that a 25-hour interrogation did not automatically render a defendant’s statement inadmissible. While the defendant was detained two hours after he requested an attorney, the court reasoned that the police did eventually honor defendant’s right to counsel. Defendant had been given Miranda warnings, and the defendant had not been physically abused in that he had been allowed to use the restroom and take smoking breaks.

If you have been charged with a crime, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case for its best possible defense. Were you improperly pressured into making a confession? Did you have the mental capacity to understand what was happening? An attorney may petition the court to suppress any incriminating statements you may have made. Even if the police acted properly and the evidence against you is overwhelming, an attorney who is respected in the court house may be able to negotiate a more favorable plea agreement than you could on your own.

If you have questions about this or another related Illinois criminal or traffic matter, please contact Matt Keenan at 847-568-0160 or email matt@mattkeenanlaw.com.

(Besides Skokie, Matt Keenan also serves the communities of Arlington Heights, Chicago, Deerfield, Des Plaines, Evanston, Glenview, Morton Grove, Mount Prospect, Niles, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Rolling Meadows, Wilmette and Winnetka.)

Posted in confession, Miranda rights, voluntary statement | Leave a comment

WHAT IS HARRASSMENT UNDER ILLINOIS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAW?

Posted on August 13, 2018 by admin

You’ve just received notice that your significant other or spouse has filed for an order of protection against you. The petitioner claims you have harassed him or her.

What exactly does that mean? What can you do to defend yourself?

Under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act, “harassment” is defined as “knowing conduct which is not necessary to accomplish a purpose that is reasonable under the circumstances; would cause a reasonable person emotional distress; and does cause emotional distress to the petitioner.”

Under the statute, the following conduct is presumed to cause emotional distress:

(i) creating a disturbance at petitioner’s place of employment or school;

(ii) repeatedly telephoning petitioner’s place of employment or residence;

(iii) repeatedly following petitioner about in public;

(iv) repeatedly keeping petitioner under surveillance by remaining present outside his or her home, school, place of employment, vehicle or other place occupied by petitioner or by peering in petitioner’s windows;

(v) improperly concealing or removing petitioner’s minor child from petitioner’s care or the jurisdiction or repeatedly threatening to do so unless you were fleeing the threat of domestic violence;

(vi) threatening physical force, confinement or restraint.

If you are served with notice of an order of protection, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case for its best possible defense. Perhaps there were legitimate reasons for your repeated contact with the other party. For example, you might have driven by their home because it was directly on your way to work. If you have been falsely accused, you might convince a judge that there are issues with the credibility of the person accusing you.

If you have questions about this or another related Illinois criminal or traffic matter, please contact Matt Keenan at 847-568-0160 or email matt@mattkeenanlaw.com.

See our related blog posts here and here.

(Besides Skokie, Matt Keenan also serves the communities of Arlington Heights, Chicago, Deerfield, Des Plaines, Evanston, Glenview, Morton Grove, Mount Prospect, Niles, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Rolling Meadows, Wilmette and Winnetka.)

Posted in domestic abuse, domestic violence, harassment, order of protection | Leave a comment