FIGHTING THE POLICE SEARCH OF YOUR COMPUTER

Under the Fourth Amendment, police must generally obtain a warrant before they can search your property. However, there are exceptions such as where you consent to the search.

But let’s say, the police tell you they are looking for one thing on your computer but actually look for something else. For example, in one Illinois case, the defendant consented to a search for viruses relating to compromised credit card information, but the officers instead looked for images and found child pornography. (See People v Prinzing.)

What can you do? Is the search valid?

The answer depends on the scope of your consent. If an officer asks to search your computer and you agree, your consent may be open ended and allow just about anything. But what if the circumstances are not so cut and dried?

Under U.S. Supreme Court case law, the scope of a suspect’s consent is measured by ‘objective reasonableness.’ What would the typical, reasonable person understand by the exchange between the officer and the suspect? The court looks at the expressed object of the search. (See Florida v. Jimeno.)

In the example above, the court said that the defendant had consented to a search for viruses and not images. Thus, the search was illegal and the child pornography evidence was suppressed.

In another case, (U.S. v Price, 12-1630 & 12-1880), a police woman asked to search defendant’s computer but said she was not an expert at computer forensics and another officer would need to conduct the search. The defendant consented, but later said he was only consenting to a search at that moment and not later. The court said the defendant’s understanding of a time limit was not reasonable since the officer had told him she couldn’t do the search herself.

Once you have given consent, you still have a right to limit it or withdraw it.

If you are charged with a computer-related or other offense, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case to help present the best possible defense. If the search if illegal, an attorney may be able to bring a motion to have the evidence against you suppressed.

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 computer, consent, search, warrant | Leave a comment

2016 UPDATE ON COURTHOUSE CELL PHONE RULES

After some confusion resulting from the recent removal of cell phone lockers at the George N. Leighton Criminal Courthouse, it seems like a good time to review the rules.

Cook County first implemented its courthouse cell phone ban in 2013. The ban is currently limited to the George N. Leighton Criminal Courthouse, 2600 N. California, Chicago. The ban was in response to security concerns that cell phones were improperly used to photograph witnesses, jurors and judges who would then be intimidated.

The ban prohibits cell phones, laptop computers, tablet computers, smartphones and all other devices capable of connecting to the internet or making audio or video recordings. Anyone violating this rule can be held in contempt of court, face a fine or jail time and have their device confiscated.

The Criminal Courthouse does provide a limited number of free storage lockers. But these lockers became difficult to oversee and were possibly used to store contraband, so the county removed them in early April. That lasted about one week and the lockers are now back. The county still recommends leaving your devices at home. The courthouse does provide public phones.

There are several exceptions to the ban. These include: jurors, attorneys and their employees, judges, persons with disabilities, news media, government employees, vendors, repair people and law enforcement. You may also bring your device if you are seeking an order of protection, you are participating in domestic violence counseling or if you are required to wear an electronic home monitoring device. If you fall into one of these categories, you must have proper identification and official business at the courthouse. For more information in Cook County, see Cell Phone and Electronic Communication Device Ban.

DuPage County also bans cell phones or communication devices in the courthouse. See Du Page County Security Information. Lake County allows you to bring in electronic devices, but they must be turned off. See Lake County Courthouse Security Brief.

If you have questions about this or another related 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 cell phone, court rules, court security | Leave a comment

FRUIT OF THE POISON TREE: STATEMENTS FROM AN ILLEGAL ARREST

Under the Constitution, police have to operate by law before they can deprive you of liberty or property. If your initial stop or arrest is illegal, then the poison fruits of that stop or arrest cannot be used against you subject to certain exceptions.

For example, police must read your Miranda rights when they take you into custody. If they do not, any statements made in custody can be suppressed. However, your statements may be used in court if they are sufficiently removed from the illegal way in which the police obtained them.

To determine if your statements are far enough removed from the “illegal taint,” the court looks at four factors: (1) the flagrancy of police misconduct; (2) whether there were intervening circumstances; (3) the proximity of time between defendant’s arrest and statement; and (4) whether Miranda warnings were given to the defendant.

In a recent Illinois case, (People v Gempel), the court suppressed statements that defendant made after an arrest based on these four factors. The court found: 1) police misconduct was flagrant in that officers ignored defendant’s requests for an attorney, saying he did not need one; 2) the results of a DNA test did not create a sufficient intervening circumstance; 3) the 37 hours between the arrest and defendant’s statements may have coerced defendant into confession; 4) while officers repeatedly read defendant his Miranda rights, their continuous disregard of those rights in reality coerced his confession. Therefore, the state failed to “purge the taint of an illegal arrest,” and defendant’s statements could not be used.

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 arrest, coercion, fruit of the poison tree, Miranda rights, motion to suppress, suppress statements | Leave a comment

YOUR MIRANDA RIGHTS APPLY TO MORE THAN WORDS

We all know from TV that police are supposed to read you your rights—also known as Miranda warnings—after they take you into custody but before questioning begins. According to a recent Illinois appellate court decision, the term “questioning” can mean something besides verbally asking questions. It can take the form of police action.

In People v Wright, a police officer handcuffed the defendant, conversed with him about the crime, then took defendant to where he could see police questioning the mother of his children. After seeing the woman get into a police car, presumably arrested for a crime she did not commit, defendant began talking. The court held that the officer’s conduct was an attempt to get the defendant to confess. While Miranda generally applies to questioning, it can also apply to police practices. Therefore, the officer should have read defendant’s Miranda rights and defendant’s incriminating statements should be suppressed.

If you have been charged with a crime, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case to help present your best possible defense. If the police acted illegally, an attorney can bring a motion to try to get the evidence against you dismissed. Even if the police acted property and 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 interrogation, miranda warning, police custody | Leave a comment

HOW RELIABLE IS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY?

HOW RELIABLE IS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY? Illinois Courts were originally cautious about allowing experts to testify about the reliability of eyewitness testimony. But as a recent Illinois Supreme Court case noted “advances in DNA testing have confirmed that ‘eyewitness misidentification is now the single greatest source of wrongful convictions in the United States, and responsible for more wrongful convictions than all other causes combined.’”

In People v Lerma, the defendant was convicted of murder solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony. The trial court rejected defense requests to allow experts to testify about the reliability of that testimony. The trial court believed that since the eyewitnesses already knew defendant, they were less likely to misidentify someone they already knew.

The Illinois Supreme Court rejected the trial court’s reasoning, stating “This is the type of case for which expert eyewitness testimony is both relevant and appropriate.” The state had no physical evidence or confession.

In the past, Illinois courts were concerend about the overuse of expert testimony, However, the Lerma court noted there had been “a dramatic shift in the legal landscape, as expert testimony concerning the reliability of eyewitness testimony has moved from novel and uncertain to settled and widely accepted.” There is now a clear trend to allow eyewitness expert testimony to help the jury understand the characteristics of eyewitness identification.

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 expert, eyewitness testimony, trial evidence | Leave a comment

CAN YOU REFUSE TO GIVE A DNA SAMPLE IN AN ILLINOIS CRIMINAL CASE?

Generally, the answer is yes.

Under Illinois case law, extracting your DNA is a search within the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, police must have either a warrant or probable cause before forcing you to submit it. Otherwise, you may voluntarily refuse to provide a sample. See People v Ealy.

Because your right to refuse to give a sample is constitutionally protected, the state may not use your refusal to show that you had consciousness of guilt at trial.

Once police have arrested you, they may take a cheek swab. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that such a swab is no more intrusive than taking fingerprints or mugshots and can be done as part of a booking procedure. See Marilyn v King.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case to help present the best possible defense. If police acted illegally, an attorney may be able to petition the court to have any illegally collected evidence dismissed. Even if police acted properly and 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 arrest, DNA evidence, evidence, search and seizure | Leave a comment

THEFT OF STOLEN PROPERTY IN ILLINOIS

In Illinois, you can be charged with theft of stolen property if you obtained control over stolen property knowing it to have been stolen, or under such circumstances as would reasonably induce you to believe that the property was stolen. (See 720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(4), Illinois Theft Statute.)

As with most crimes, the state must prove you guilty of all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. A recent Illinois appellate case overturned a defendant’s conviction because the state failed to do just that.

In People v Netisingha, undercover officers sold Target merchandise to the defendant. Although the defendant believed the merchandise was stolen, in fact, it was not. Thus, the state failed to prove the first element of the crime.

This does not mean that if you bought property from an undercover cop, you are in the clear. Another part of the theft statute deals with obtaining control over property that law enforcement represents or implies is stolen. In that case, the state must also prove that you meant to permanently deprive the owner of the property The penalties for theft range with the amount stolen. Theft of less than $500 is a Class A Misdemeanor while over $1 million is a Class X felony.

If you are charged with a crime, you should contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can evaluate the circumstances of your case to present the best possible defense. Even if the police handled your case by the book and the evidence against you is overwhelming, an attorney who is respected at the court house may negotiate a better plea agreement than you could on your own.

If you have questions about this or another related 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 stolen property, theft, theft from law enforcement | Leave a comment

CAN I BE CONVICTED ON MORE THAN ONE CHARGE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE? THE “ONE-ACT, ONE-CRIME” DOCTRINE IN ILLINOIS

When you were arrested, the prosecutor may have filed several charges against you. You didn’t know so many crimes could come out of the same set of circumstances. Can you be convicted on all of them?

Under Illinois law, you can only be convicted of one crime for each physical act. For example, if you killed a pedestrian while drunk driving, you may be charged with both reckless homicide and aggravated DUI, but you can only be convicted of one charge or the other. The charges must arise out of precisely the same physical conduct or must arise out of a series of incidental or closely related acts.

In the aggravated DUI/reckless homicide example, both charges are based on the same physical act—driving in such a manner that would cause death. Furthermore, causing the death of another is a necessary element of both charges. Therefore, a defendant should not be convicted of both. See People v Stutzman.

Even where charges are based on multiple acts, you may be charged with a lesser included offense, but you cannot be convicted of both the lesser and greater offenses. For example, if aggravated DUI is a lesser included offense of reckless homicide, you can only be convicted of one or the other.

If you are charged with a crime, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case to determine your best possible defense. 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 can on your own. Perhaps if the state has brought too many charges, an attorney can bargain for you to plea to a lesser offense. If you do go to trial, an attorney can petition the court to throw out any convictions that violate the one-act, one-crime doctrine.

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 criminal offenses, lesser included offense, one-act one-crime | Leave a comment

CAN POLICE SEARCH YOUR COMPUTER?

The police are at your door. A neighbor complained about a disturbance and they came to investigate. You figure you have nothing to hide in your home so you consent to the search. But you do have something to hide—only it’s in your computer.

Can police search your computer? What are you rights?

Generally, police need a search warrant before they can look at the contents of your computer unless some other exception to the warrant requirement exists. (See U.S. vs Flores-Lopez.) Unlike other physical objects, computers hold vast quantities of private and sensitive information. Even when police can legally take the computer, they must still get a warrant to investigate it.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that computers cannot be searched as part of an arrest. Generally, that type of search is allowed to preserve evidence and to protect officer safety in case the defendant has a weapon. The court held that neither rationale applies to digital data.

Officers can still search your computer if there is a compelling emergency—such as locating the whereabouts of a kidnapped child.

But what if you told police it was OK to search home? Does that include your hard drive? Police may generally look only where the object of a search may reasonably be found. Guns or drugs are not likely to be found on your computer screen. If you told police they could search your computer, however, your consent may be general enough to permit the search. This is a developing area of law.

If you believe the charges against you are the result of an illegal search, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can determine if police followed proper procedures. If not, an attorney may be able to petition the court to suppress any illegally obtained evidence.

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 cell phone search, computer search, consent to search | Leave a comment

NEW ILLINOIS LAW REQUIRES POLICE BODY CAMERAS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS

We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again. The vast majority of police are good people trying to do a difficult job in community service. Unfortunately, the recent epidemic of unjustifiable police killings have spotlighted more than a few bad apples. Fortunately, the Illinois legislature has acted to improve police-citizen relations in our state.

The new law taking effect January 1, 2016 makes significant changes.

First, police will be required to wear body cameras, a big step in holding police accountable to the public. Body cameras can further provide evidence that is useful for both defendants and police. Cameras must be turned when the officer is in uniform and responding to calls for service or other law-enforcement related activity.

The new law attempts to balance law enforcement interests with privacy. Officers need not activate the camera when in their squad car if they are not involved in law enforcement activities. Cameras must be turned off at a victim’s or crime witness’s request as well as when the officer is dealing with a confidential informant. The officer may also turn off the camera when involved in a community caretaking function unless a crime is being committed.

The law clarifies that the public is allowed to record police encounters although police still have a right to control a crime scene if such people become disruptive.

Officers will be required to receive yearly and long-term training beyond what they learned at the police academy including training in cultural competency. The law also bans the use of chokeholds.

The law was the fruit of negotiations between the ACLU, the NAACP, community groups and law enforcement groups and passed with bipartisan support. To see a copy of the bill, visit Illinois Police and Community Relations Improvement Act.

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 Uncategorized | Leave a comment