WHAT TO DO IF YOU HAVE NOT HIRED AN ATTORNEY FOR YOUR FIRST CRIMINAL OR DUI COURT DATE IN ILLINOIS

Posted on July 29, 2014 by admin

You were recently charged with a crime, and your first court date is coming up fast. You intended to hire an attorney, but haven’t been able to do so yet—either because of time or money or you just haven’t picked which one.

How should you handle your first court date?

Many people come to court at some point without an attorney. In most cases, the judge will require you to come back with someone. Playing your own lawyer may make exciting TV drama, but in most cases, the judge will not allow it. If you are truly indigent, you may be entitled to the public defender. Otherwise, you must hire your own private counsel.

If you don’t have an attorney on your first court date, you must still appear. Some courtrooms will allow a defendant to check in with the court clerk to have your case called sooner. Most courtrooms, however, do not allow this practice and require you to wait until your turn on the docket. By Supreme Court rule, defendants with private attorneys are called first.

Once your case is called, answer “here” and step up before the bench. Explain to the judge that you will be hiring your own attorney and politely request a continuance. The judge should give you a new court date. It is best if you have an attorney by this second court date or you may try the judge’s patience.

When attending court, be sure to appear on time even though you may have to wait. You should dress in clean, pressed, conservative clothing.

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 appearance, court appearance, court date | Leave a comment

DO THE POLICE NEED A WARRANT TO SEARCH A CELL PHONE? THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS ‘YES!’

Posted on July 15, 2014 by admin

Police generally do not need a warrant to search a suspect as part of a lawful arrest. Such a search may be limited to the person of the arrestee and the area immediately within their control. However, most of us carry cellphones on our person. Can the police look at all the personal information stored in our phone?

In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has said the answer is no. See Riley v California. While officers may search the arrestee to prevent destruction of evidence or protect the officer from harm, searching a cell phone serves neither purpose. Instead the intrusion to a defendant’s privacy far outweighs those concerns. And an officer can protect the phone’s contents from being remotely erased by following certain procedures.

According to the court, cell phones differ from other physical objects because of their immense storage capacity. Cell phones “could just as easily be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps or newspapers,” the Court wrote. In this digital age, the person who doesn’t carry a “cache of sensitive personal information with them” is the exception.

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 arrest warrant, arrest. criminal arrest, cell phone search, search and seizure | Leave a comment

“BUT I JUST TEXTED!”: THE LAW ON CYBERSTALKING IN ILLINOIS

Posted on June 24, 2014 by admin

UPDATE: The Illinois Appellate Court declared this law unconstitutional on June 24, 2016. See our related post Illinois Stalking and Cyberstalking Laws Declared Unconstitutional.

You broke up with your girlfriend. You still had something you wanted to say. But she wouldn’t talk to you so you kept instant messaging her. Finally, you IMed that she better talk to you “or else.” Now you are charged with cyberstalking.

What is cyberstalking? What can happen to you? What can you do?

In Illinois, you can be charged with cyberstalking if you use electronic media to harass someone else on at least two separate occasions. Electronic media includes texts, emails and voice mails. You must also have knowingly and without lawful justification transmitted a threat of immediate or future bodily harm, confinement or sexual assault against that person or their family or you must have caused that person or their family to reasonably fear immediate or future harm.

And your stalking need not be one on one. It is still cyberstalking if you solicit someone else to do the harassment for you. Additionally, you can be charged if you knowingly and without legal justification maintain an internet page accessible to more than one person for at least 24 hours that 1) threatens someone, 2) causes them or their family to fear immediate or future harm or 3) solicits others to harm that person or their family.

Cyberstalking on a first offense is a Class 4 felony punishable by 1 to 4 years in prison. Further offenses are a Class 3 felony punishable by 2 to 5 years in prison.

If you are charged with cyberstalking, consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. Do not talk about your case with the police or third parties. Do not try to explain yourself. You may just end up digging yourself in deeper. What you think is justification might give the prosecution the evidence they need to convict you.

An experienced attorney can review your case to help you present the best possible defense. As with most criminal charges, the state must prove you guilty of all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Did you act knowingly? Were your actions without legal justification? Did your statements go beyond harassment? Was the victim’s fear of bodily harm reasonable? Was the internet page posted without your knowledge?

Even if the evidence against you is overwhelming, an experienced 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: 720 ILCS 5/12-7.5: Cyberstalking.

(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 Cybercrime, cyberstalking, electronic harassment, electronic stalking, harassment, stalking | Leave a comment

“I DIDN’T STEAL IT!”: PROVING BURGLARY IN ILLINOIS

Posted on June 17, 2014 by admin

You bought a couple I-phones from an acquaintance. You thought they were his, but it turned out he had recently stolen them from a store and then he disappeared. Now the police have charged you with the burglary.

What can happen to you? What can you do?

The crime of burglary in Illinois involves stealing from a place. (720 ILCS 5/19-1.) If you knowingly enter or remain in a building without permission with the intent to commit a felony or theft, you may be charged with a Class 2 felony, punishable by 3 to 7 years in prison. If the building was a day care, school or church, your charges can be upgraded to Aggravated Burglary, a Class 1 felony, punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

But you didn’t steal the phones and you were never in the store. Can they still convict you? As with most other crimes, the state must prove you guilty of every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact you have the recently stolen I-phones may not be enough to convict you of their burglary unless 1) there is a rational connection between your possession of the stolen property and your participation in a burglary, 2) your guilt of the burglary more likely than not flowed from your recent, unexplained and exclusive possession of the proceeds, and 3) there was corroborating evidence of your guilt.

In a recent Illinois Appellate case, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction because the evidence was insufficient to infer that the defendant had committed the burglary based on his unexplained and exclusive possession of some auto parts. The prosecution could not prove that the items the defendant possessed were the same as the recently stolen parts or that he even entered the store where they had been taken. (See People v Terrance Smith.)

If you are charged with burglary or a related crime, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can review the evidence for weaknesses in the state’s case and help you put on the best possible defense. Even if the evidence against you is overwhelming, an experienced attorney who is respected in the courthouse may be able to 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 aggravated burglary, burglary, stealing, theft | Leave a comment

THE ILLINOIS LAW ON HOT PURSUIT

Posted on June 10, 2014 by admin

When you saw the siren, you panicked. You knew you were near the city limits or the state border and you thought if you crossed it, the police would have to stop just like in the movies.

Can police follow you across jurisdictional lines? For the most part, they can although the rules for out of state and in-state police are somewhat different.

Police from outside Illinois have the same authority to arrest you inside Illinois as an Illinois officer if they are in hot pursuit. (725 ILCS 5/107-4). Hot pursuit is defined as the immediate pursuit of a suspect who is avoiding arrest. The officer need not have you in view the entire time, but must have uninterrupted knowledge of your whereabouts and must proceed without unreasonable delay. The officer’s jurisdiction must share a border with the place where you fled.

Once arrested, the officer must bring you before the circuit court in the county where you were arrested in order to determine whether the arrest was lawful.

Inside Illinois, police may arrest you anywhere in the state for a crime committed inside their jurisdiction. (725 ILCS 5/107-5). Illinois case law has held that police may make an arrest in an adjoining jurisdiction where the officer has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense in the officer’s jurisdiction. This is true even though the officer merely entered the adjoining jurisdiction because of some suspicious activity and was not then in fresh pursuit of the offender. People v Carraher.

Police, however, cannot arrest you for a crime committed outside their jurisdiction. A recent Illinois case held that Chicago police could not arrest a Maywood defendant where the criminal act, police surveillance, search and arrest all took place in Maywood. People v Harrell.

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 fleeing, fresh pursuit, hot pursuit, jurisdiction, police jurisdiction | Leave a comment

RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY IN ILLINOIS: WHEN A HOME IS NOT A DWELLING

Posted on June 3, 2014 by admin

A person commits residential burglary in Illinois when he or she knowingly without permission enters or stays within someone else’s dwelling intending to commit a felony or theft. Residential burglary in Illinois is a Class 1 felony.

If your burglary is not within a dwelling, then you may be eligible for the lesser charge of simple burglary, a Class 2 felony. So how do you know whether the home you were in was really a dwelling?

The residential burglary statute defines a dwelling as “a house, apartment, mobile home, trailer, or other living quarters in which at the time of the alleged offense the owners or occupants actually reside or in their absence intend within a reasonable period of time to reside.” (720 ILCS 5/2-6(b), 19-3(a).)

Under Illinois case law, a home is not a dwelling if the owners have moved away and do not intend to return, even if the property is up for sale and may be occupied at some later time. See People v Brett Roberts. Further, a building owned by a real estate developer was not a dwelling even though the developer visited the premises and planned on remodeling. See People v Marcello Moore. In either case, there were no specific individuals who lived there or intended to move in.

If you are charged with burglary, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case to help you present the best possible defense. As with most criminal charges, the state must prove every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. With residential burglary, the state must prove that the building is a dwelling. Otherwise, at the very least, your charges must be reduced.

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.

Also see: Illinois Burglary 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 burglary, Class 1 Felony, Class 2 felony, dwelling, residential burglary, robbery, theft | Leave a comment

THE ILLINOIS LAW ON CRIMINAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Posted on May 19, 2014 by admin

Illinois law punishes those who have a “common design” in committing a crime.

Under Illinois accountability law, you can be charged with another’s crime when either before or during the offense, you solicit, aid, abet, agree or attempt to aid, such other person in the planning or commission of the offense” while intending to promote or facilitate the crime. (720 ILCS 5/5-2).

To prove a defendant intended to aid a crime, the State must show either (1) the defendant shared the criminal intent of the main defendant, or (2) there was a common criminal design. Under the common design rule, if “two or more persons engage in a common criminal design or agreement, any acts in the furtherance of that common design committed by one party are considered to be the acts of all parties to the design or agreement and all are equally responsible for the consequences of the further acts.” (See People v Fernandez). In other words, you can be charged with any crime your co-defendant commits even if you were nowhere in sight. The state may also prove you had a common purpose if you voluntarily joined a group that you knew intended to commit a crime.

One example of accountability law is People v Kessler. A defendant and two other men planned to burglarize a bar. The two men entered the bar while defendant waited in the car. Surprised by the bar owner, the men shot and wounded the owner, then fled on foot. Police chased them and one man shot at police. Although defendant remained in the car the whole time, he was convicted of the burglary and the attempted murders. (See People v Kessler).

If you are charged because of another’s crime, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. Do not discuss your situation with the police or third parties. Any attempt to explain yourself might give the prosecution just the evidence they need to convict you as well as limit any potential defense.

As with most crimes, the State must prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Did you know what was going on? Maybe you gave the co-defendant a baseball bat because they told you they were going to play ball. Even if the evidence against you is overwhelming, an attorney who is respected in the courthouse, may be able to 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 abetting, accessory, accountability, aiding, conspiracy, conspirators | Leave a comment

CAN THEY SEARCH MY STUFF IN SOMEONE ELSE’S CAR?

Posted on April 28, 2014 by admin

You were a passenger in a friend’s car. You had your suitcase in the backseat. Your friend got pulled over by police, and police searched your bag and found drugs or weapons.

Can the police search your bag if you don’t own the car? What can you do?

Whether police can search your belongings in another’s car without a warrant turns on whether you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car or your bags. To determine whether you can challenge a search, the court weighs several factors including:

1) Do you own the car?

2) Do you have control of the car or a right to exclude others from using it?

3) Are you legitimately in the car yourself? If you stole the car, you would not have a right to prevent a police search of your belongings.

4) Do you have a subjective expectation of privacy in the car?

5) Have you previously used the area that was searched?

In general, passengers do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a car they don’t own, but may still have privacy rights in their own belongings. However, the court has found a privacy right where the passenger was given the keys to the car or was on a long road trip and stored their belongings in the car.

If you had a reasonable privacy expectation in the car, you may be able to challenge the search and any evidence that was seized. If you are charged with a crime, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. An attorney can review your case for the best possible defense and petition the court to suppress the results of any illegal search.

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.

Resource: People v Ferris.

(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, evidence, investigatory stops, privacy rights, probable cause, reasonable expectation of privacy, search and seizure | Leave a comment

THE ILLINOIS LAW ON STALKING

Posted on April 7, 2014 by admin

UPDATE: The Illinois Appellate Court declared this law unconstitutional on June 24, 2016. See our related post at Illinois Stalking and Cyberstalking Laws Declared Unconstitutional.

You can’t get her out of your mind. So you’ve been following her thinking she didn’t see you. But she called the police and now you are charged with stalking.

What can happen to you? What can you do?

In Illinois, you can be charged with stalking if you knowingly: 1) Engage in conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their or another’s safety or cause them emotional distress. 2) Follows or places someone under surveillance at least twice and threatens that person or their family member with harm. 3) After a conviction for stalking, follows or places that same person under surveillance or threatens them with harm even if it is just once. 4) Direct a third person to do your stalking for you.

Stalking on a first offense is a Class 4 felony, punishable by 1 to 4 years in prison and a $2,500 fine. Later offenses up the ante to a Class 3 felony, punishable by 2 to 5 years plus a fine.

The stalking conduct may include harming another person’s property or pet, following them, monitoring them or other nonconsensual conduct. Stalking includes electronic communication, potentially including images sent via Snapchat or other similar servers.

If you are charged with stalking, contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately. Do not discuss your situation with the police or third parties. Any statements you make could be used against you at trial and could limit your potential defenses. Often, people trying to justify their conduct just dig themselves in deeper.

An experienced criminal law attorney can review your case for the best possible defense. As with other criminal charges, the state must prove you guilty of all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The stalking law requires that you acted “knowingly” or that the conduct be “nonconsensual.” Did you know the alleged victim was going to be where you saw him or her? Did he or she tell you to stop by or email? Was your conduct really bad enough to cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress or fear for their safety?

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 cyberstalking, electronic stalking, following, harassment, stalking | Leave a comment

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT HOLDS EAVESDROPPING LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Posted on March 31, 2014 by admin

Two recent Illinois Supreme Court decisions have put nails in the coffin of Illinois’ controversial Eavesdropping statute.

Under the law, a person is guilty of eavesdropping when he or she “knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation or intercepts, retains, or transcribes electronic communication unless he does so (A) with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication.” 720 ILCS 5/14 2(a)(1)(A).

Prior well-publicized cases have involved individuals recording their encounters with police. A jury acquitted one such defendant and a judge deemed the statute unconstitutional in another defendant’s case. In 2012, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held the law unconstitutional.

Now, the Illinois State Supreme Court has agreed in both Kane and Cook County cases. In People v DeForest Clark, a Kane County defendant recorded conversations involving himself, his ex-wife’s attorney and a judge. The Clark court stated that the law was overbroad, and in a world of smart phones, went too far to protect an individual’s privacy in their communications.

In the Cook County case, the defendant recorded conversations with a court reporter regarding a court transcript’s accuracy. Defendant posted the conversations on her website. (See People v Melongo.) The court held that the eavesdropping statute substantially burdens more speech than necessary to serve the government’s legitimate interest in protecting privacy. In other words, enforcing the statute too often criminalizes otherwise innocent conduct.

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 eavesdropping, illinois eavesdropping act | Leave a comment