Tag Archives: double drug enhancement

The “Rule of Law”. Where does it originate and what does it mean?

Posted on by
The “Rule of Law”. Where does it originate and what does it mean?
The concept of the “rule of law” has ancient origins and has evolved over time. Its roots can be traced back to different civilizations and legal traditions. However, one of the most influential historical sources of the rule of law is the ancient Roman legal principle of “principium legalis,” which means “the principle of legality.”
In its broadest sense, the rule of law refers to a system in which the law governs the nation, its institutions, and its people. It embodies the idea that everyone, including government officials, is subject to and accountable to the law. The rule of law encompasses several key principles:
Supremacy of the Law: The law is the supreme authority, and no one is above it. This means that all individuals and institutions, including the government, are bound by and must adhere to the law.
Equality Before the Law: All individuals are equal in the eyes of the law. No one should receive preferential treatment or be subjected to discrimination based on factors such as social status, wealth, or power.
Legal Certainty and Predictability: The law should be clear, accessible, and predictable, enabling individuals to understand their rights and obligations. It promotes stability, ensures fair treatment, and prevents arbitrary exercises of power.
Fair and Impartial Administration of Justice: Legal proceedings should be fair, transparent, and conducted by independent and impartial courts. This principle safeguards individual rights, ensures due process, and upholds the principles of justice.
Protection of Individual Rights and Freedoms: The rule of law emphasizes the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the right to life, liberty, and property. The law acts as a shield to safeguard these rights from infringement by both individuals and the state.
The rule of law is a cornerstone of democratic societies and is essential for promoting good governance, upholding human rights, fostering economic development, and maintaining social order. It serves as a check on the abuse of power and provides a framework for justice, accountability, and the peaceful resolution of disputes.

Hidden Penalties for Convictions in Illinois

Posted on by
In Illinois, there are several hidden penalties that can accompany a criminal conviction. Some of the most significant include:
Loss of voting rights: If you are convicted of a felony in Illinois, you will lose your right to vote until you complete your sentence and any related probation or parole.
Difficulty finding housing: Many landlords and property management companies conduct background checks on prospective tenants. If you have a criminal record, it may be more difficult to find housing, particularly if you have been convicted of a serious crime.
Difficulty finding employment: Similarly, many employers conduct background checks on job applicants. If you have a criminal record, it may be more difficult to find employment, particularly in certain industries.
Loss of professional licenses: Depending on the nature of the crime, a conviction may result in the loss of a professional license, making it difficult to continue working in certain fields.
Immigration consequences: If you are not a U.S. citizen, a criminal conviction can have serious immigration consequences, including deportation or denial of citizenship.
Loss of gun ownership rights: Depending on the nature of the crime, a conviction can result in the loss of your right to own or possess a firearm.
It is important to note that these consequences can have a significant impact on your life even after you have completed your sentence. If you are facing criminal charges in Illinois, it is important to speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney to understand the potential consequences of a conviction and to explore your legal options.

The law of search and seizure in Illinois

Posted on by
The law of search and seizure in Illinois is governed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Illinois Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that the police cannot search a person or their property without a warrant, unless there is an exception to the warrant requirement.
There are a few exceptions to the warrant requirement. For example, the police can search a person or their property without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the person is involved in a crime and that evidence of the crime will be found in the place to be searched. The police can also search a person or their property without a warrant if they are in hot pursuit of a suspect or if they have exigent circumstances, such as a belief that evidence is about to be destroyed.
If the police conduct an illegal search, the evidence obtained in the search may not be admissible in court. This means that the prosecution cannot use the evidence to prove its case against the defendant. In addition, the defendant may be able to file a civil lawsuit against the police for damages.
Here are some of the key provisions of the law of search and seizure in Illinois:
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The police cannot search a person or their property without a warrant, unless there is an exception to the warrant requirement.
There are a few exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as probable cause, hot pursuit, and exigent circumstances.
If the police conduct an illegal search, the evidence obtained in the search may not be admissible in court.
The defendant may be able to file a civil lawsuit against the police for damages.

his is what the Illinois court system was up to in February of 2016.

Posted on by

This is what the Illinois court system was up to in February of 2016. Here are the 9 best and worst cases. The last one is the one the prosecution doesn’t want you to know about.

  1. People v. Boston
    Sloppy grand jury work by State’s Attorney does not prejudice defendant. Go to case.
  2. People v. Ligon
    Many objects can qualify as dangerous weapons for purposes of aggravated vehicular hijacking, but not as to armed violence.  In other other words, list of bludgeons is greater for AVH and smaller for armed violence. Go to case.
  3. People v. Zayed
    Smell of cannabis does not give this officer a free pass to search this passenger because the officer crossed the line by whipping out the defendant’s penis and essentially conducting an unreasonable strip search.  Go to case.
  4. People v. Jarvis
    The visual examination of defendant’s buttocks might have exposed defendant’s anus. Nonetheless, any search for the “person” authorizes a strip search. Go to case.
  5. People v. Little
    This DWLR conviction stands because the police officer didn’t need proof of every element of the crime he was investigating. The stop with limited information was good. Go to case.
  6. People v. Buschauer
    The trial court’s finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence in that a reasonable person in would have felt free to leave at any point during the interrogation. Trial court just can’t ignore the factors that weigh against coercion. Go to case.
  7. People v. Harrison
    This force blood draw was not suppressed because it was done before the McNeely decision and binding precedent was in place. Good faith exception applies. Go to case.
  8. People v. Moore
    Lost photo arrays were not done in bad faith, so no due process violation occurred. The proper remedy for this discovery violation was to grant Civil Jury Instruction 5.01. Go to case.
  9. People v. Nibbe
    Second degree murder conviction is vacated outright because a blow with a bare hand is not ordinarily contemplated to cause death.  Go to case.
  10. People v. Pmulamasaka
    This rape is overturned, in large part, because the State committed and the trial judge allowed gross prosecutorial misconduct. Among the list of error committed by the prosecution two stand out. He repeatedly argued the victim was mentally handicapped when there was no such evidence, and he sat in the witness box during closing argument. Go to case.

New Cases in Illinois January 2016

Posted on by
New Cases in Illinois January 2016
 
People v. Lerma
Illinois Supreme court acknowledges that eyewitness identification experts have their place in Illinois criminal trials.
 
People v. Cummings
Asking for a driver’s license in a lawfully initiated stop is always reasonable because identifying the driver is within the scope of every traffic stop.
 
People v. Mpulamasaka
In this sex case, the prosecutor was found to have committed prosecutorial misconduct when he argues from the witness stand, attacks the character of the defendant, criticizes the cross examination of the victim by counsel, and persistently tells the jury that the victim was mentally handicapped even though the evidence in the case did not reveal any mental infirmities.
 
People v. Chambers
“John Doe” warrants do not preclude a Frank’s Hearing. A defendant may challenge the veracity of an officer who drags a criminal informant before a warrant judge.
 
People v. Thompson
An officer may provide lay person opinion testimony that the accused is the person depicted in surveillance video images.
 
People v. Williams
The double drug enhancement in the drug act is inconsistent with the code of corrections. Therefore, the double drug enhancement cannot be applied when the code of corrections is applicable.
 
People v. Tolbert
The part of the AUUW section that prevents liability when the accused is “on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee” is an affirmative defense that must be proven by the state only when the issue is appropriately brought up.
 
People v. Clendenny
There is a difference between being placed on a county wide organized form of work release and being placed on normal probation with permission to be released to go to work. One has a 12 month restriction the other does not.
 
People v. Pike
In DNA cases, a random match probabilities of 50% is inherently prejudicial and should never be admitted. Go to case.
People v. Wright
Driving a defendant to the location of his girlfriend’s arrest was an interrogation tactic, thus defendant’s statement was suppressed.
 
People v. Gempel
The premature arrest of the murder defendant was followed up by persistently ignoring his request for an attorney, so “no” the taint of the illegal arrest was not attenuated sufficiently to admit his confession. Defendant’s statement was suppressed.