Articles Tagged with arrest

Published on:

Chicago Crimlaw-education-series-3-1467430inal Defense Lawyer Michael Rosenblat wins fourth not guilty verdict in a row.

Mr. Rosenblat’s most recent not guilty came on May 13, 2016 when the judge found the defendant not guilty of domestic battery.  The alleged victim claimed that the defendant pushed a heavy object into her knocking her to the ground.  In order to prove its case, the Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney called two witnesses to testify, the alleged victim and a Chicago Police Officer. Mr. Rosenblat’s cross-examination of the complaining witnesses exposed the fact that she could not see who caused the object to be pushed into her.  The cross-examination also uncovered many inconsistencies in her testimony that defied common sense.  The defendant was found not guilty without the defense calling a single witness.

On March 30, 2016, Mr. Rosenblat’s client was found not guilty of aggravated robbery, a charge that carried a maximum sentence of up 30 years in prison.    The complaining witness added facts in his testimony, which he never told to the police even though he was interviewed multiple times.  Mr. Rosenblat’s cross-examination of the victim’s prior inconsistent statements showed that he was not credible. Mr. Rosenblat called several witnesses in the defense case in chief, including the defendant.  Defendant was found not guilty of all charges.

Published on:

In United States v. Spears, (March 8, 2012) the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that even though there were misrepresentation in the affidavit presented to the magistrate judge, by the police, there was still sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause.

On August 1, 2008 an Indiana police officer acting as a federal agent submitted an affidavit in support of a search warrant for the home of Defendant Spears.  The affidavit stated that a confidential informant had been in the basement of Defendant’s home and had observed multiple rooms with marijuana plants, a water system, growing lights, fertilizer, and PVC piping from the basement to outside the house.

The affidavit also stated that on July 31, 2008 officers conducted a trash pull and found a marijuana stem in the trash.  The affidavit further stated that the electric company reported higher than normal electrical usage for Defendant’s home compared to similar homes.  The magistrate judge granted the search warrant and the warrant was executed on August 6, 2008.

Published on:

Center Console of a car is a “Case” under weapons statutes

Court finds that a gun placed in the center console of a car is “encased” for purposes of the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute.

In People v. Harris, 2012 IL App (1st) 100077, Harris was charged with carrying a loaded uncased firearm in a vehicle and related charges.  In another case, People v. Holmes, 241 Ill. 2d 509 (2011), the Illinois Supreme Court held that a backseat armrest which contained a cover and latch fell within the definition of “case” under the UUW statute.  Thus the court here found that the gun Harris had in the center console of his car was encased and that conviction was reversed.

Published on:

In People v. Contreras, 2011 Il App (2d) 100930, the appellate court held that the defendant’s arrest by Chicago Police Officers in Will County for a crime that occurred in DuPage County was improper as the police officers lacked authority to execute an extrajudicial arrest of defendant.

Citing a number of statutes, the court basically found that a police district includes any municipality adjoining the arresting agencies police district. 65 ILCS 5/7-4-8. It also cited the statue that allows any person, a police officer, or private citizen, to make an arrest for an offense other than a municipal ordinance violation. 725 ILCS 5/107-3. Illinois courts have, however, held that when police obtain information by use of their police powers, such as radar guns, that information does not provide them with the authority to make an arrest. In other words, the police cannot use information they obtained because they are police officers to make “citizens arrests” outside of their jurisdiction.

The court then looked to two other sections which could possibly give the police authority to arrest. Sections 107-4(a-3)(1) and (2). Section (1) allows the police to make an arrest if the investigation is for an offense that occurred in the officer’s primary jurisdiction. This of course was not applicable here, became the Chicago police officers were not investigating an offense that occurred in Chicago. Section (2) allows the police to make an arrest if they become “personally aware” of the commission of a felony or misdemeanor. Here the court found that the officers were not personally aware that the defendant committed an offense but only learned that defendant maybe involved in criminal activity because of their use of police radios.

Published on:

Unfortunately, many people in their lifetime get charged with a criminal offense.  Fortunately, many of these people are charged with minor criminal offenses, or even municipal ordinance violations, and have never committed a crime before and never will again.  Fortunately, most prosecutors, assistant state’s attorneys, and most judges are sympathetic to these defendants and agree to have the matter disposed of in a way that would not become a permanent mark on their record.

 

First time drug offenders are often offered “drug school” and first time shoplifters are often offered a theft deterrent school.  Once the defendant successfully graduates the case is dismissed and the defendant can have the arrest and case expunged.  Expunged means that the records are physically destroyed. 

 

People charged with shoplifting, battery, and assault are often, if found guilty, sentenced to court supervision.  Court supervision is when the defendant pleads guilty but the judge does not enter judgment on the finding of guilt.  Therefore, there is no conviction.  After the period of court supervision has expired, the case is dismissed and the defendant may file a petition to have the case and arrest sealed after a set waiting period, which depends on the type of charge.  The waiting period is either two or five years.