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

THE CRIME OF GROOMING IN ILLINOIS

Posted on July 27, 2018 by admin

In the internet era, stranger danger is not limited to the streets.

The act of using an electronic transmission device such as the internet to induce the trust of a child under age 17 for sexual purposes is known as “grooming.” Grooming is a Class 4 felony, punishable by 1 to 4 years in prison.

Under Illinois law, a person commits grooming when he or she knowingly attempts to use or uses an on-line, internet or local bulletin board service or any other device with electronic data storage or transmission to solicit, lure or entice a child or their guardian into committing any unlawful sexual conduct.

According to People v Vara, “In the context of sex abuse of a child, grooming is commonly understood as a method of building trust with a child or an adult around the child in an effort to gain access to the child, make the child a cooperative participant in the abuse, and reduce the chance that the abuse is detected or disclosed.”

If you are charged with grooming or a similar offense, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can review the options for your best possible defense. As with most other crimes, the state must prove you guilty of all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Can the state prove that you sent the electronic messages? Did the police have probable cause to search you or your computer? Even if the evidence against you is overwhelming and the police acted lawfully, an attorney who is respected at 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.

See: Illinois Grooming Statute.

(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 grooming, sex crime, sex offender, sex offense | Leave a comment

THE CRIME OF COUNTERFEIT TRADEMARKS IN ILLINOIS

Posted on July 20, 2018 by admin

Let’s say you want to sell 100 pairs of blue jeans. Your jeans are from a no-name brand, but if they had a fancy designer label, you know you’d make a lot more money. So you copy a high-end designer’s trademark and print it on your pants. Now you may be in the money, but you’re also in trouble with the law.

The Illinois Counterfeit Trademark Act makes it a Class A Misdemeanor to use, sell or circulate items with a counterfeit trademark or service mark. Even if you haven’t sold the items, you can be charged if you intended to sell and the items are in your possession. The Act also applies to services sold using a counterfeit mark.

Your charges may be upgraded to a felony if you sold more than 100 counterfeit items, had a prior conviction within five years or caused bodily harm as a result of your offense. Besides time in prison, the court may fine you a percentage of the retail value of the counterfeit items.

To convict you, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you (1) knowingly kept or had in your possession (2) with the intent to sell or dispose of (3) any goods or merchandise to which a counterfeit mark was attached, and (4) that you were not the rightful owner of such trademark. A counterfeit mark is one that is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive.

For example, in People v Gueye, the defendant intended to sell handbags with fake Michael Kors, Burberry and Tory Burch trademarks. The State had to show that the marks were affixed to the handbags, and that they were identical to or substantially indistinguishable from the real ones. The court found that the false labels were in fact likely to cause confusion between defendant’s bags and the real thing, and thus upheld defendant’s conviction.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case for its best possible defense. The Trademark Counterfeit Act has a lot of moving parts. Can the state prove all the elements of your offense beyond a reasonable doubt? 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 counterfeit, counterfeit trademark | Leave a comment

ILLINOIS STATE SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN LAW BARRING GUNS WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A PUBLIC PARK OR SCHOOL

Posted on July 10, 2018 by admin

Illinois residents cannot be barred from carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of a public park or school, although it is still illegal to carry a gun within a public park.

In People v Chairez, the court held that while the rest of the Illinois Unlawful Use of Weapons law remains constitutional, the section barring weapons within 1000 feet of a park did not pass muster. The court said the ends of protecting the public did not justify the means of banning the guns. Instead, the statue could punish potentially innocent conduct if a defendant unknowingly crossed into a prohibited zone near a park. Most troublesome was the lack of notice as to where the 1000-foot limit began or ended.

Following the above decision, the Appellate Court in People v. Green, struck down sections of the gun law barring possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of a school. In Green, a security guard with a valid FOID card was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon because he was standing with a loaded, accessible firearm across the street from a high school. The court said the state failed to show that limiting guns within 1,000 feet of a school mitigated violence. Again, a lack of notice as to where the 1,000 feet began and ended was problematic.

It is still illegal, however, to carry a gun inside a public park. In People v. Bell, the court said that a public park may be considered a sensitive place, warranting reasonable measures to protect the public especially since large numbers of people, including children, congregate there for recreation.

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 police lacked probable cause to stop you or perhaps the evidence against you was improperly seized. Even if the police acted legally 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 firearm possession, firearms, gun law, gun possession, unlawful use of a weapon | Leave a comment

STALKING THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA IN ILLINOIS

Posted on July 3, 2018 by admin

No matter how tempting it may be to strike out at your ex- through seemingly anonymous social media, you could be charged with stalking. In Illinois, stalking through social media can be prosecuted as “monitoring.”

A recent Illinois case illustrates how manipulating social media such as Facebook can run afoul of the law. In People v Gauger, the defendant used Facebook to harass his ex-wife. The ex-wife discovered that defendant had reactivated her old Facebook account when a friend asked if she had sent a new friend request. The ex-wife also received invitations from a third party who had never sent them. Defendant instead had set up a fictitious account using the third party’s name.

The court convicted defendant finding the evidence “overwhelmingly establishes that the defendant directly or indirectly through third parties monitored and communicated to or about Ms. Carswell through his Internet activities.” Because defendant had violated an existing order of protection, his offense was upgraded to aggravated stalking.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the part of the stalking statute dealing with communicating to or about someone had been struck down. The appellate court, however, reasoned that the anti-stalking statute also prohibited monitoring. Monitoring meant watching, keeping track of or checking another, usually for a special purpose. The court said, “Even without the Facebook messages, the evidence showed that defendant created at least one fictitious Facebook account in the name of Carswell’s friend, downloaded pictures of her and her family, and apparently even obtained mail addressed to her.” Defendant’s course of conduct therefore satisfied the definition of monitoring.

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. To prove stalking, the state must show that you knowingly engaged in a course of conduct that you knew or should have known would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her or a third person’s safety or that you caused the victim to suffer other emotional distress. Can the state prove all these elements beyond a reasonable doubt?

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 cyberstalking, social media, stalking | Leave a comment