It will be interesting to see if her case is a winner. This appears to be a new trend the police and prosecution in Illinois. They have a judge “on call” to issue warrants for blood of people accused of DUI’s. In order for the police to obtain a warrant, they must have probable cause. My concern with this new trend is whether the judge is actually evaluating each case to determine if the police do in fact have probable cause to obtain the evidence from someone’s person.

This should not be taken lightly. We are dealing with the Fourth Amendment right to free from unreasonable search and seizures. And we are not dealing with a search of someone’s home, which is obviously very important. Instead we are dealing with the search of someone’s actual person. What can be a more sacred right than that? I don’t think they should be allowed to take our blood without consent, period.

However, if the courts do believe it passes constitutional muster, I still have concerns about the way it is being done. My fear is that the judge issuing the warrant is just hearing the same old contrived story from police officers concerning DUI arrest. The person, in the police officer’s subjective point of view, failed field sobriety tests. However, there are many police officers who are not qualified to give such an opinion. If we are going to allow the State to take such an invasive action such as taking our blood from our persons, I think we must demand that the proper standard of probable cause be met.

To me, this at the very least requires the judge granting the warrant to inquire into the police officers experience in giving the very technical field sobriety tests they rely upon.

However, it is still a guilty plea and can have severe direct and collateral consequences. For instance, in Illinois, if you receive supervision on a DUI, it is your one and only bite at the apple. If you ever get another DUI in the future, even if it is 50 years later, you are subject to a mandatory driver’s license revocation. So it is always preferable to beat the case at trial if possible, even if the State is dangling the carrot of court supervision before you.

Another consequence of court supervision is possible deportation. While the court and the prosecutor may not consider the charged offense a serious offense, federal immigration law may. So a person who is a legal resident or an illegal immigrant may face deportation even if they receive supervision on certain offenses. This can result in terrible situations for people. I have seen legal residents who have been in this country since they were children sent back to their country of origin because of guilty pleas!!

Also, while the state of Illinois may view court supervision as a slap on the wrist, the Federal government does not. When a person pleads guilty or is found guilty of a federal offense, the court uses the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as a guide to sentence the defendant. These guidelines take into account the defendant’s criminal history, and supervision counts! Thus, a defendant could end up with a longer sentence on a Federal drug charge because they decided to plead guilty in state court on what they considered a minor charge, such as simple battery or driving on a suspended license.

Another misconception out there is that all supervision cases are expunged. That is not the case. Certain offenses are ELIGIBLE for expungement, however the criminal defendant must actually petition the court for expungement. And there are many offenses that cannot be expunged, regardless of whether a defendant received supervision. Some examples are DUI, Domestic Battery and Reckless Driving.

These fees can be as high as $1,200. A lot of times, the person who is arrested for a DUI or driving without a license or a suspended or revoked license is not the actual car owner. In this case the innocent owner, who did not commit any criminal or traffic offense if left paying the bill. Is this fair? See the attached article: http:

The driver paid the $75 ticket; however, he then received a red light violation in the mail because a red light camera also caught him. The administrative penalty for the red light camera violation was $100.

A person cannot be punished twice for the same crime. That is called Double Jeopardy and it is not permissible under the US Constitution. Eventually, this driver was able to get the administrative penalty vacated based on double jeopardy principles.

This case presents many interesting issues for DUI clients and their attorneys. If a police officer is using a traffic infraction as the basis for probable cause to stop a motorist for a DUI, and there is a red light camera at that particular intersection, the pictures taken from that camera should be subpoenaed immediately by the motorist’s attorney. Especially if the police officer’s basis for the stop is that the motorist ran the red light, but he is not issued a ticket in the mail for the infraction. This video may provide proof that the traffic infraction was not in fact committed. Thus, there may be a motion to throw out the whole DUI case.

Buyers today are very picky, requiring all the bells and whistles such as granite countertops, maple cabinets, and stainless steel appliances. However, are they missing one of the most important issues? Many of these condominium developments built in the last 10 years during the bubble were built with poor construction standards. Developers tried to squeeze every penny out of these condos and in the process compromised construction standards. They then turned these buildings over to condominium associates with inadequate reserves and low assessments. In addition, city inspectors for the city of Chicago were often inexperienced political hires who did not hold developers feet to the fire when it comes to building code violations.

In order to protect themselves from a large special assessment in the near future to repair or replace common elements of the building such as masonry, roofs, or elevators, buyers need to look at the reserve levels of the association. Reserves should be sufficient to repair or replace these big ticket items mentioned above. Depending on the size of the building, these costs can ranch from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. Buyers should also have their attorney review the association meeting minutes and the annual budget to see if any special assessments have been discussed or if there are any unusual or unbudgeted expenses in the budget.

If the association is inadequately funded, buyers should ask if a reserve study has been performed on the building to determine future capital expenses. If the condominium building was built during the bubble, there are inadequate reserves, and no reserve study to determine future costs, buyers are subjecting themselves to significant cost down the road.

While features such as granite countertops and stainless steel appliances are nice, purchasing a condominium in a well built building with an adequate reserve account is just as important. If you are looking to purchase a condominium downtown, make sure this is a priority for you and make sure you have a lawyer who will do the proper investigation for you.

However, does the new Illinois law also give police officers new discretion to justify traffic stops that lead to DUI or drug arrests?

The law states as follows: “A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a roadway while using an electronic communication device to compose, send, or read an electronic message.” 625 ILCS 5/12-610.2(b).

“Reading an electronic message” is pretty broad language. Does that include looking at a phone to see a phone number of a person calling? Does it include looking up a phone number to dial even when using a handsfree device? Could a police officer’s testimony that he saw a driver looking down and that the driver had a hand held device in the car be enough for a traffic stop?

I forsee DUI and drug arrests being made with this new law being used as the reason to conduct the traffic stop. Does this new Illinois law give police officers too much discretion to stop drivers?