Darryl A. Goldberg Chicago Criminal Defense Lawyer | Cook County Federal and State Crimes Attorney | Illinois Drug Crime Law Firm 2026-08-19T13:36:54Z https://www.goldbergdefense.com/feed/atom/ WordPress /wp-content/uploads/sites/1602988/2020/10/cropped-apple-touch-icon-32x32.png On Behalf of Darryl A. Goldberg <![CDATA[Can I Have My Gun Rights Restored After a Conviction?]]> https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48502 2026-08-19T13:36:54Z 2026-08-19T13:36:54Z The DOJ’s New Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Program Announced As we previously covered, the Trump Administration had signaled its willingness to explore avenues for individuals to have their gun rights restored after a conviction, even in instances in which a previous conviction for felonies and other certain crimes would have automatically disqualified said individual from legally owning or handling a firearm. On August 17, 2026, Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the Department of Justice had finalized a rule that outlines a functioning federal process for the restoration of firearm rights. The new Federal Firearm Rights Restoration (“FFRR”) program, gives individuals who are federally prohibited from possessing firearms a concrete path to apply for relief, although any restoration is not a given and the policy outlines many limitations and/or waiting periods for individuals. “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety,” said Attorney General Todd Blanche in an accompanying statement announcing the rule on the DOJ’s website, further stating that “this rule establishes a rigorous, commonsense process that protects the public while giving deserving Americans a real path to restoration.” This rule should have immediate effects on how those facing criminal charges and considering negotiating with prosecutors or plea bargaining if those defendants hope for a pathway back to legal gun ownership.

Who Can and Who Can’t Apply

The FFRR program is open to any individual who is federally prohibited from possessing or handling firearms under federal law, including people with felony convictions, unlawful drug use, certain mental health adjudications, domestic violence misdemeanors, and other traditional disqualifiers. The new delineated process will not be a rubber stamp., as the DOJ has made clear that restoration is an individualized determination. For example, the DOJ has identified a detailed set of “presumptive disqualifiers” such as those currently facing charges, certain mental health or drug histories, and convictions for what are traditionally viewed as “violent offenses,” along with prescribed waiting periods that will result in a denial unless the applicant demonstrates “extraordinary circumstances.” This catchall “extraordinary circumstances” provision can be seen in other federal regulations seeking relief in the criminal justice system, but it normally sets a high bar to cross for those not presumptively entitled to relief. In any case, each applicant must establish, to the Attorney General’s satisfaction, the circumstances of their prohibition, along with their record, reputation, and subsequent conduct, to show that the applicant is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Once the rule takes formal effect thirty days after its publication in the Federal Register, this new process outlines a significant development for those seeking to have their gun rights restored.]]> On Behalf of Darryl A. Goldberg <![CDATA[Prediction Markets, Federal Charges, and the Legal Gray Zone]]> https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48501 2026-08-12T10:17:34Z 2026-08-12T10:17:34Z US Soldier Charged with Trading on Inside Information Prediction markets have exploded in popularity over the past several years, with platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket allowing users to wager real money on the outcomes of elections, geopolitical events, sporting contests, and even whether a foreign leader will be removed from power by a certain date, with millions of dollars at stake. But the legal framework governing them is still being written, with potential for users to find themselves in trouble with the law. Recently, a soldier in the United States army special forces was charged in what is thought to be the first criminal prosecution for insider trading on a prediction market in U.S. history. And the defense arguments being raised have implications that reach far beyond one soldier’s Polymarket account. For anyone who has placed bets on these platforms, or anyone who may face charges for doing so, this case is worth understanding and seeing how the Courts treat individuals charged with breaking the law on these platforms. In January 2026, U.S. special forces carried out Operation Absolute Resolve, a military operation that captured former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in Caracas. Days before the raid became public, Master Sergeant Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a special forces soldier who prosecutors say was involved in the planning and execution of the mission, allegedly created a Polymarket account and placed a series of bets knowing the planned outcome from the planned raid. According to the Department of Justice, Van Dyke placed approximately 13 bets between December 27, 2025, and January 2, 2026. Every one of them took the “yes” position on contracts predicting that Maduro would be out of power by January 31, or that U.S. forces would enter Venezuela by the same date. When the raid was executed in the early morning hours of January 3, the contracts resolved in Van Dyke’s favor, netting him over $400,000 from his “bets” on the website, for which he is now charged with commodities fraud, wire fraud, and other charges relating to those positions. However, his attorneys filed a 51-page motion to dismiss the charges recently, arguing that none of his alleged conduct actually broke any laws as they exist. As Van Dyke’s filing put it, the government indicted him “using two theories: one, novel, never before prosecuted, and unsupported by the law; the other, already rejected by the Second Circuit.” They argue that the prosecution is being “overzealous,” saying, “Criminal courts are not laboratories where prosecutors can test new ideas and hypotheses about whether conduct is criminal.”

Kalshi, New York, and the Regulatory Patchwork for These Platforms

The Van Dyke prosecution does not exist in a vacuum, but exists against a larger effort by the government to regulate and exercise control over these platforms and markets. In July 2026, a federal judge in New York denied Kalshi’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have blocked the state of New York from enforcing state gambling laws against the platform. Kalshi, which operates as a CFTC-designated contract market, argued that the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive authority over contracts traded on its platform and that state gambling regulations are therefore preempted. However, the court disagreed and found against the company at the preliminary stage, seemingly buying the government’s argument that the company is operating in the gambling space. The New York Attorney General filed a separate enforcement lawsuit accusing Kalshi of operating an unlicensed gambling platform and offering event contracts on sports, elections, and other outcomes without approval from the New York State Gaming Commission. Courts in other jurisdictions have reached varying conclusions on whether prediction market contracts qualify as swaps making the future of these markets unclear, many of which handle millions of dollars on a daily basis. How courts and prosecutors treat them in the future will be anyone’s guess, or if Congress decides it needs to intervene and tighten existing regulations to make sure these markets don’t exist in a type of legal “grey” zone. The Van Dyke case has the potential to be a bellwether for future prosecutions. For anyone who has traded on prediction markets, or who is currently facing charges or an investigation related to such trading, the most important thing to understand is that this is an area of genuinely unsettled law with broad implications for any users and whether or not they are opening themselves up to legal liability.]]> On Behalf of Darryl A. Goldberg <![CDATA[Can Out-of-State Arrests Revoke Pretrial Release in Illinois?]]> https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48499 2026-08-05T13:44:32Z 2026-08-05T13:44:32Z Recent Development in the Pretrial Fairness Act by New Appellate Ruling  As we have extensively covered, the Pretrial Fairness Act (or SAFE-T Act as it is commonly referred to) has seen its share of developments and interpretations since its historic passing eliminating cash bail across Illinois. In one appellate court’s recent ruling, that court ruled in People v. Ford that out-of-state criminal charges serve as the basis for revoking a defendant’s pretrial release in Illinois, reversing the trial court’s ruling and holding that nothing in the plain language of the statute limits revocation to charges arising under Illinois law. Under the relatively new SAFE-T Act, those criminally charged can only be held in pretrial detention if they commit one of a delineated number of felonies or serious misdemeanors, otherwise they are not eligible for detention. However, once released and before their original case is adjudicated, defendants on pretrial release can be detained if they are charged inside or outside of Illinois with an offense that otherwise is not initially eligible for detention, according to this Fourth District Appellate Court ruling. Michael Andrew Ford was charged in Rock Island County with unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon in two separate cases filed in 2023. After an initial detention, the parties agreed to pretrial release in April 2024 under several conditions, including GPS electronic monitoring, a prohibition on leaving Illinois without court permission, and a requirement that Ford refrain from possessing firearms. He failed to show up to court and a warrant was issued for his arrest. After he was arrested, prosecutors discovered that he had also been charged in Scott County, Iowa, with a series of offenses including possession of a weapon by a felon, trafficking in stolen weapons, and multiple counts of unauthorized use of a credit card over $1,500, amongst other charges. When the State filed a petition to revoke Ford’s pretrial release based on those Iowa charges, the trial court denied their petition finding that the Pretrial Fairness Act only authorized revocation for felonies and Class A misdemeanors committed in Illinois. Justice Grischow, writing for a unanimous panel, reversed that ruling. The court’s analysis centered on specific language of the Act which provides that pretrial release “may be revoked” if a defendant “is charged with a felony or Class A misdemeanor” alleged to have occurred during pretrial release. The statute does not say “an Illinois felony” or “a felony under the laws of this State.” It simply says “a felony or Class A misdemeanor” and that the legislature could have written a limiting geographical instruction had it wished to do so, therefore in the absence of such an instruction, the Court interpreted the silence as purposeful. This ruling means that there is precedent that defendants who commit new crimes while on pretrial release in Illinois are not necessarily insulated from revocation simply because the new charges arose in a different state. However, because this opinion arises from one Appellate District among the many in the State, there is an argument that it is merely persuasive authority and is not binding on other districts such as defendants in Chicago or other appellate districts, until the Illinois Supreme Court weighs in on the matter. Still, prosecutors will argue that the equivalent of any felony or Class A misdemeanor charge from any other jurisdiction can serve as the basis for a revocation petition, so long as the State can show the out-of-state offense is comparable to an Illinois felony or Class A misdemeanor. Given the Chicagoland’s proximity to Indiana and Wisconsin, this can be particularly worrisome for Chicagoland residents already on pretrial release as any misdemeanor or felony charge will likely jeopardize their continued pretrial release. If you or someone you know is facing pretrial release revocation proceedings, understanding how these issues apply to your specific case is critical. An experienced criminal defense attorney can evaluate the strength of the State’s petition and advocate for conditions that allow you to remain in the community while your case is pending.]]> On Behalf of Darryl A. Goldberg <![CDATA[A.I. Predictive Policing and Its Dangers]]> https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48498 2026-07-30T17:15:56Z 2026-07-30T17:15:56Z The Rise of Algorithmic Policing in the Federal Government Law enforcement agencies across the United States have increasingly adopted different types of quasi-“precrime” monitoring tools that utilize artificial intelligence-driven predictive policing systems to forecast where crimes are likely to occur and who may commit them by analyzing large sets of data. But the expansion of predictive A.I.-systems extends beyond local police, as it was recently revealed that the FBI is now seeking to enhance its intelligence watch list systems with A.I.-predictive capabilities. The change was reported after a recent request was listed that invited  vendors to bid on a project for the agency to create, “an artificial intelligence system for pre-crime policing” that would “leverage existing enterprise datasets...to develop predictive models” that “predict where additional relevant information may be derived across federated systems.” In other words, the FBI wants an artificial-intelligence powered search function to automatically sift through its reams of data to help add people to its terrorist watch list, which already numbers approximately around 2 million names, and is known to be notoriously secretive. Many individuals do not know that they are even on the lists, which numbers will undoubtedly increase once this new tool is implemented. This expansion is planned despite previous audits having found serious errors in its data in the past, with the Supreme Court even ruling against the government in multiple cases of certain individuals who challenged their inclusion on the list in the past. While originally designed for Islamic terrorists in the aftermath of 9/11, the definition of who qualifies to be on the list has greatly expanded since then. As FBI Director Patel touted on Fox News, “I’ve got every major tech company in the world embedded in the FBI, rebuilding our internet capabilities, our classified systems, and the ability for artificial intelligence to be in our counterterrorism program so we can get instantaneous results. What's the point of collecting terabytes of data if you can't sift through it?” But many watchdog agencies worry that the system that was already rife with potential for abuse and lack of oversight and that handing this power over to machines will only make this issue grow with the potential for real world consequences for those placed on the list. 

Potential for Bias in Predictive Policing Tools

Many watchdog agencies and advocacy groups have predicted that the rise in A.I. in policing will disproportionately affect minority and other historically repressed groups. In the Department of Justice’s own report from December 2024, they warned that the data, “used for predictive policing may have significant gaps and errors, and it may reflect human biases. Use of models based on that data may entrench existing disparities and result in unintended consequences and unjust outcomes.” This can create a vicious cycle in which the aforementioned areas are subject to further over-policing that will generate further arrest data that feeds the algorithm, which then unfairly tells law enforcement to concentrate more in those areas in a sort of doom loop for residents. Not to mention such discriminatory, or in fact arbitrary, policing practices could have broad Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns for individuals accused of crimes in those areas or whose crimes were based on the use of artificial intelligence rather than the individual judgment of a law enforcement officer. This is especially concerning because many of the private companies utilized by law enforcement lack government oversight and often rely on privately collected data which has become an increasing problem as we have previously covered extensively. Undoubtedly, just like geofence warrants, automatic license plate readers, and other mass surveillance technology, the legal challenges will continue as the surveillance state in this country expands. ]]> On Behalf of Darryl A. Goldberg <![CDATA[Are Automatic License Plate Readers and Flock Cameras Constitutional?]]> https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48497 2026-07-17T13:38:37Z 2026-07-17T13:38:37Z Ongoing and Future Litigation Over Countrywide Systems of Surveillance The Supreme Court is yet to weigh in on the constitutionality of automatic license plate readers (“ALPR”), but arguably the most famous and pervasive company in the industry, Flock, is coming under increasing scrutiny from both the public and legal challenges. The ACLU's “Get The Flock Out” campaign frames Flock as one vendor among several, Axon, Motorola's Vigilant Solutions, Genetec, Rekor, and others, building what it calls a “nationwide mass surveillance system,” largely without warrants. The statistics it cites are alarming, alleging that there are already 80,000-100,000 Flock cameras currently installed across the country, but fewer than 1% of cars scanned by the cameras have been connected to any crime, and 1-in-10 scanned license plates have their issuing state misread. The ACLU's point isn't just about error rates, it’s about what continuous, networked plate-scanning reveals over time. As the campaign puts it, cameras that constantly track where you drive can reveal “which doctors you visit, what house of faith you worship at, who you visit or drive around with — even which political meetings and protests you attend.” The abuses the ACLU catalogues on its website and the lawsuits it has filed reveal that these are not unrelated incidental data collection but can be used to built a profile of anyone’s life, built car trip by car trip. While Flock and similar camera systems are still legal, the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chatrie v. United States may be a signal that these systems are ripe for challenges on Fourth Amendment grounds. We previously covered that decision, but to briefly summarize, the Court held that in applying the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test, it reasoned that a geofence warrant seeking someone’s location history is a Fourth Amendment search, meaning it requires a valid warrant grounded in probable cause and particularity, not just a subpoena-style request to a tech company. Under that same logic, it could be argued that a network of 80,000-plus cameras, logging every plate, every crossing, and making that history searchable by any agency with a Flock contract, is a lot like the aggregated, revealing dataset the Court was unwilling to protect in Chatrie without a warrant. That holding cuts directly against the theory Flock and other ALPR vendors have relied on for years in that because you're driving on a public road, in plain view, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your movements, so none of what the companies do count as a “search” requiring a warrant. Whether the Court will extend the Chatrie logic to ALPRs is to be determined, but many criminal defendants and privacy advocates should watch any developments closely, particularly for defendants where law enforcement used Flock or similar systems in their investigations.

Controversy and Pushback by the Public

Flock and other surveillance companies do not confine themselves to just ALPRs but run extensive surveillance systems in nearly every facet of public life. In Dunwoody, Georgia, public records requests filed by a resident revealed that Flock Safety employees had logged into cameras inside the Marcus Jewish Community Center and watched children in a gymnastics room and by a pool, not for security purposes, but to demo the company's surveillance capabilities to other prospective police clients. When this became public, Flock CEO Garrett Langley apologized directly to the community center, calling it “poor judgment,” and the company promised what it called “radical transparency,” along with a pledge to stop using Dunwoody's footage in future sales pitches. Afterwards, the city council of Dunwoody renewed its contract with Flock, but only after a hotly contested council meeting in which many residents voiced their concerns about stalking, ICE data sharing, and surveillance of protests. But this misuse was not the only case that is grabbing headlines and leading to a public backlash. In the weeks after the city council vote, other departments began auditing their own employee’s Flock use, which turned up more abuses of the system and led to the arrests of several officers accused of misusing plate reader data, adding to an earlier case in which five officers were fired for similar abuses of the system. Residents have even begun to chop down the camera poles in some instances where they can be located, and the LAPD recently let its contract expire, with the department Chief Information Officer Dean Gialamas citing, “serious concerns around civil liberties and civil rights issues,” particularly who owns the data and how it gets shared, though other law enforcement agencies have actually expanded their network of cameras in recent weeks as well. There is even a website dedicated to fighting back against the proliferation of the cameras, DeFlock, an open-source, crowdsourced map started by Alabama software engineer Will Freeman after he noticed how many license plate readers he was passing on a routine drive. The website lets anyone report a camera's location, the direction it faces, and which agency or vendor runs it. The site describes its own mission as being to “shine a light on the widespread use of ALPR technology, raise awareness about the threats it poses to personal privacy and civil liberties, and empower the public to take action,” because ALPRs are, “increasingly being deployed by law enforcement and private companies without the public's full understanding or consent.” Whatever gets decided in the courts, the public argument over whether this technology should even exist or be implemented at this scale is not going away anytime soon.]]> On Behalf of Darryl A. Goldberg <![CDATA[How Chatbots and Notetakers Can Destroy Attorney-Client Privilege]]> https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48496 2026-07-16T13:34:43Z 2026-07-16T13:34:43Z Chatbots Don’t Have Attorney-Client Privilege and Can Be Used Against Defendants There are ongoing issues surrounding the use of artificial intelligence and the legal community, particularly about traditional safeguards for clients and if they are applicable with the new technology. Generally speaking, if you or a loved one are under investigation or facing criminal charges, one of the most valuable things you have is the ability to speak candidly with your attorney. The attorney-client privilege exists so that you can tell your lawyer the whole truth, including the bad facts, without worrying that the government will one day read your words back to a jury. However, artificial intelligence tools are quietly eroding that protection. Not because anyone intended it, but because the way people use AI does not fit the way privilege law works. As we previously covered, a judge earlier this year ruled that an individuals use of Athropic’s Claude to analyze his legal situation was not protected by attorney-client privilege. In the end, a criminal defendant’s private brainstorming about his own defense became evidence in the government’s hands. Courts are not uniform on this matter yet, with many yet to weigh in on the matter, but regardless no one facing criminal charges should be betting their liberty on which line of cases a judge will follow.

AI Notetakers and Their Inherent Risks

Another problem for privilege emerging is one most people never think about, because the AI can join conversation on its own. AI notetakers, the bots that sit in on Zoom, Teams, and Google Meet calls to transcribe and summarize, turn everything said in a meeting into stored data. That data may be retained indefinitely, used to train models, sold, or could exposed in a breach. In practice, theoretically a notetaker on a call with between a lawyer and their client could disclose that conversation to a third party without the right safeguards in place. That is precisely the disclosure that can defeat privilege. It also creates a permanent, searchable transcript of exactly the discussion you least want preserved, one that captures every offhand remark, every misstatement, and every bad joke, with no context and sometimes with the wrong speaker attached to the wrong quote as the technology is not without its limits.  This technology, along with court’s rulings make clear that anyone facing charges should not type the facts of their case into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, or any other public AI tool. Not to “understand the charges,” not to check whether your lawyer is right, not to draft a timeline. Assume anything you enter can end up in the government’s hands. Under no circumstances should one let an AI notetaker sit in on any call with your attorney. Check the participant list before every video meeting and object if a bot is present. Do not upload documents such as discovery, police reports, financial records, or any other potentially incriminating or privileged information into an AI tool for summarizing. While AI is certainly useful in many ways, it should be used by your defense team, in a secure environment, at counsel’s direction (if at all), not by a non-lawyer who does not have some of the same protections for privacy. Privilege is not automatic. If you are under investigation or charged with a crime, close the chatbot and call a lawyer who can advise you and keep your information safe from other parties. ]]> On Behalf of Darryl A. Goldberg <![CDATA[AI Regulation Is Moving Fast]]> https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48495 2026-07-07T20:30:22Z 2026-07-07T20:30:22Z What It Could Mean If You're Facing Charges Involving AI As just about anyone would be aware from the constant news coverage, and as we have previously covered, the laws surrounding artificial intelligence (“AI”) are rapidly evolving, at every level of government. Congress is debating federal legislation, with a push by some within the federal government to take the lead and preempt any state attempts at regulation. Illinois lawmakers just passed a new batch of state laws aimed at curtailing what it sees as the abuses made available by its proliferation, and courts are starting to see cases where AI itself is part of the alleged crime. If you're facing criminal charges that involve AI in some way, including but not limited to generated images, deepfakes, chatbot-related conduct, or something else, it helps to understand where the law currently stands and where it’s possibly headed.

Congress Still Hasn’t Passed a Comprehensive AI law

As of this writing, there is no single federal statute generally governing AI. Instead, Congress is working on narrower bills that target specific harms purportedly created by AI. The most advanced of these currently being debated is the NO FAKES Act (which is an acronym for Nurture Originals, Foster Act, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2026), which cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee by a unanimous voice vote last month addressing the proliferation of so-called “deepfakes” which mimic a person’s voice and/or likeness to create authentic looking fake videos. It is designed to target unauthorized generated digital replicas.  The bill would create a federally-defined property right over a person’s voice and visual likeness, and would make individuals, companies, and even platforms liable for producing or distributing unauthorized AI-generated “digital replicas.” One of the companion bills introduced by one of the House’s cosponsors, Adam Schiff, who has said that the “rapid advancement of generative AI has brought incredible innovation, but it’s also unleashed a wave of unauthorized exploitation,” citing specific examples of celebrities and children being victimized by the technology. Some senators on the committee, including Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, raised First Amendment concerns during the markup, particularly around satire and political commentary in trying to find a balance between the harms and potential First Amendment violations that the bill could potentially cause. Those objections didn't stop the bill’s advancement, but they may shape how it looks by the time it reaches a full Senate vote and possible passage. 

Illinois Isn’t Waiting on Federal Government to Reform Legal Framework

With no comprehensive federal law in place, Illinois has been legislating artificial intelligence developments on its own. As of July 1, 2026, Illinois formally expanded its legal definition of cyberbullying to include AI-generated digital replicas and deepfakes. The change followed incidents like one at Lake Zurich High School, where students used AI to create sexually explicit images of classmates and the Illinois State Board of Education is also now required to issue statewide guidance on AI in schools. This issue is not confined to this one high school, as a 2024 survey found that 40% of students knew or were aware of deepfakes involving a classmate at their school, which may be underscoring the current issues since the popularity of these “tools” have only grown. However, this is a school policy change, not a new criminal statute, and that distinction matters. The underlying criminal exposure for that type of conduct was already in place, as AI-generated sexual images that appear to depict minors can already be prosecuted under Illinois's child pornography and obscenity statutes, and creating, possessing, or distributing such images can result in serious criminal charges regardless of whether the image was depicting something “real.” Anyone should be made aware that one doesn’t not have to create these images or videos to be criminally charged, as mere possession or forwarding the images in certain instances is sufficient for someone to be held accountable under the law. ]]> On Behalf of Darryl A. Goldberg <![CDATA[Will the Courts Overturn AR-15 Bans?]]> https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48494 2026-07-02T13:48:15Z 2026-07-02T13:48:15Z Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenges to Cook County, Illinois  and Connecticut Assault Weapons Bans On June 30, 2026, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in two closely watched Second Amendment cases challenging local and state bans on AR-15-style rifles, one out of Cook County, Illinois, and one out of Connecticut. The cases will be argued and decided during the Court’s next term, which begins in October 2026. Cook County’s ordinance, known as the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban, bars residents from owning, buying, or transferring AR-15s and roughly 125 other types of rifles. First adopted in 1993 and updated since, the ban was upheld by the Seventh Circuit in 2015 and again in 2019, which the Supreme Court declined to review in the past, although certain justices previewed that they were likely to grant review in the future as more cases and circuit splits mounted. The current challenge, brought by Cook County residents Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya along with gun rights organizations, argues that the AR-15 is owned by tens of millions of law-abiding Americans and therefore cannot be considered a “dangerous and unusual” weapon subject to a categorical ban. The companion Connecticut case involves that state’s assault weapons law, tightened after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which the Second Circuit upheld under the historical-tradition framework the Supreme Court established in its 2022 decision recognizing a right to carry firearms in public.

What Does This Mean for Those Already Convicted or Facing Criminal Charges?

Both Illinois and federal prosecutors in Illinois regularly bring weapons charges involving semiautomatic rifles and other firearms covered by assault weapons statutes. A Supreme Court ruling striking down these bans, or even significantly narrowing how they can be applied, could directly affect the viability of pending and future possession charges premised on these laws and even allow for challenges to past convictions, depending on how the Court rules and whether any relief could be retroactive. However, for practical purposes this should not have a huge effect, because the prosecutions usually hinge on the defendant being a felon or prohibited person in possession of a firearm, not a prosecution for possession of a banned type of weapon by an otherwise lawful possessor of firearms. With that said, if the law is declared unconstitutional, it could have a similar outcome for many Illinois residents who challenged their convictions under a previous statute limiting gun possession outside the home that was later ruled unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court in the landmark 2013 decision in People v. Aguilar that saw many people seeking to overturn their previous convictions. While the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, anyone seeking similar reprieves will have to wait for likely around a year before they rule on the matter, and there is no guarantee how the Court will rule, although it has recently generally found to be in favor of Second Amendment challengers. Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke has signaled the County intends to vigorously defend the ordinance and until the Court rules otherwise, the existing bans remain in full force, and prosecutions under them will continue. Defendants currently facing charges should not automatically assume relief is coming, but they should be building the record now to take advantage of it if it does. In appropriate cases, it may be worth seeking a stay or continuance pending the Supreme Court’s decision, particularly where a client’s exposure turns substantially on a weapons count tied to a banned rifle.]]> On Behalf of Darryl A. Goldberg <![CDATA[Are Geofence Warrants Legal After Supreme Court Ruling?]]> https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48492 2026-07-01T13:40:39Z 2026-07-01T13:40:39Z Supreme Court Rules Geofence Warrants Are a Fourth Amendment Search As we have previously covered, the Supreme Court signaled that they would review the legality of “Geofencing,” the investigation tool police use when they know a crime occurred at a particular place and time, but do not have a suspect, and conduct a search using location data for every cell phone inside a specific area at the time of the alleged crime, when they took up the case and heard oral arguments. The basic idea is to work backward from the location data to acquire a list of possible suspects, which the government argued does not rise to the level of an unreasonable inquiry concerning the privacy protections for individuals guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court issued it opinion on the case, Chatrie v. United States, holding that police conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they obtain a person’s Google “Location History” through a geofence warrant, extending the logic of their previous decision, Carpenter v. United States, which will have real consequences for how location data is used in criminal investigations. To briefly summarize the facts of the case in Chatrie, police were investigating a 2019 bank robbery in Virginia and obtained a geofence warrant for Google’s Location History service, which records a user’s location roughly every two minutes, can place a phone within about twenty meters, and can even estimate which floor of a building the phone is on. Google ultimately produced identifying information for its users in the area at the time of the robbery, including Okello Chatrie, whose data showed he entered the geofenced area shortly before the robbery occurred. Chatrie challenged the investigatory process, and this opinion followed his appeals.

Court Rules Fourth Amendment Protections at Play but Leaves Open Question for Future Challenges

In its ruling, by a 6-3 decision, the Court held that accessing Location History data is a search because a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information. Justice Kagan, writing for the majority, explained that everything the Court relied on in Carpenter to find a search of cell-site data applied “as well or better” to Location History, which is, “’the most sweeping, granular, and comprehensive tool’ existing today for collecting and storing location data.” In arriving at this conclusion, the Court rejected the government’s arguments to the contrary, instead ruling that “an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.” First, it refused to recognize a so-called “grace period” for short windows of data that the government argued for, clearly stating that it does not matter that the police obtained only two hours of location information because the Fourth Amendment does not kick in only once an intrusion “goes too far.” Second, the Court declined to apply the third-party doctrine, which generally holds that when an individual shares information with a third party they  forfeit their expectation of constitutionally protected privacy, for such intrusive and pervasive information as this type of cell phone data. Essentially that Location History is “not truly shared” in any ordinary sense, and the government argument to the contrary “misapprehends the very nature of modern cell-phone use,” since it is generated automatically when a person uses the ordinary features of a smartphone, and thus a user isn’t opening themselves up to sharing private information with the government, “just by doing the ordinary things cell-phone users do.” However, the ruling was not an outright win for privacy advocates and those who wish to use it as a definitive ruling for future challenges in similar criminal cases, as the Court decided only that a search occurred. It did not decide whether the search was unreasonable, and it did not decide whether the evidence in Chatrie’s own case will be suppressed, instead opting to remand the issue back to the lower courts. Most strikingly, as the dissent by Justice Alito points out, the Court expressly declined to address the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule that the Fourth Circuit had previously found would likely allow the admission of evidence in this particular case since the legality of geofence warrants at the time was an open question. The trial court had admitted the evidence under that exception, and the Supreme Court left that question open for the lower court to revisit on remand given this ruling. In other words, the decision does not outright eliminate the good-faith exception in this or similar cases to date, and it does not automatically suppress evidence already gathered through geofence warrants.  In the end, Chatrie confirms that location data held by technology companies is protected by the Fourth Amendment, and its reasoning reaches beyond geofences to other types of investigatory tools using cell phone data. The Court’s rejection of the “short duration” and “voluntary sharing” arguments applies to a wide range of app-generated, cloud-stored personal data that can be accessed via a cell phone, not just Location History. However, while it may not help the defendant who brought the challenge in this Supreme Court case, the case effectively places law enforcement on notice of the issues with Geofencing and an officer seeking to invoke good faith on a defective warrant in the future will fail. For anyone whose case involves location data, a cell phone, or digital records held by a third party, these developments underscore how much can turn on the specific nuanced facts related to the gathering of evidence by law enforcement.]]> On Behalf of Darryl A. Goldberg <![CDATA[How Federal Sentencing Works in Fraud Cases]]> https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48491 2026-06-29T13:42:42Z 2026-06-30T13:40:59Z Why the “Loss Amount” Is Often the Key Factor When someone is under investigation or charged with a federal fraud offense, one number that will be of vital importance is what is known as the “loss amount.” Oftentimes, this figure will matter more than any individual’s background or their underlying conduct/motivation for their alleged transgression. In fact, depending on the case, this “loss amount” can be the single most important factor at sentencing, more than how the scheme worked, and more than whether an individual ever saw a dollar of the money. Understanding how that number is built, and how it can be fought, can be the single most important thing a person facing a federal fraud charge can do before sentencing. Federal fraud, theft, and embezzlement cases, are sentenced under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, generally beginning with section 2B1.1.  We have previously given an overview of what the federal sentencing guidelines are and how they generally apply here, but this will provide another general overview in these specific types of cases as they relate to sentencing. Often the starting “offense level” is low, a 6 or 7, but a tiered loss table can add up to 30 levels on top of it depending on what the “loss” amount is calculated to be, a table of which can be found here. Whatever that amount is ultimately calculated to be can add years or even decades to any starting advisory guideline range. As an example, a defendant with a base level of 7 and a $2 million loss figure receives a 16-level enhancement, jumping to level 23 before any other factor is even considered. For someone with no criminal history, this alone elevates an advisory guideline sentence from 0-6 month range (and probation eligible) to a 46-57 month custodial sentencing range alone. This is why, in fraud cases, the fight over the loss amount is very often the most crucial sentencing factor when determining the advisory sentencing guideline range. The good news for anyone facing sentencing is that the guidelines are advisory, the government’s loss figure is frequently inflated, and an experienced criminal defense lawyer can often drive those numbers much lower before even considering and addressing other mitigating factors.

The Difference Between Actual Loss and Intended Loss 

As the guidelines are currently written and enforced, in the vast majority of cases, the loss figure is calculated as the greater of “actual loss” or “intended loss.” “Actual loss” is the real, foreseeable financial harm caused in any fraud scheme, whereas “intended loss” is the harm the defendant attempted to cause through various methods, even if the loss ultimately never materialized, was impossible, or the defendant knew it was highly unlikely to occur at the time of the alleged transgression. In practice, this means by way of example, that a scheme designed to obtain $2 million in fraudulent earnings that was stopped through law enforcement intervention or only ended up with an actual loss of $400,000, will still be sentenced on the full $2 million in most instances, greatly increasing the base level offense. For years, defendants argued that “loss” should mean only actual loss, and in certain situations have persuaded some judges to agree, although recent changes have made those arguments harder, but not foreclosed based on the right facts and persuasive advocacy. Moreover, if the actual or intended loss is too difficult to determine, the Court can sentence a defendant based on the gain to the defendant. Because the loss figure often carries so much weight, it is often where skilled defense work can pay the largest dividends. The government bears the burden of proving loss by a preponderance of the evidence, and the sentencing court needs only a reasonable estimate and not mathematical certainty, but “reasonable” leaves enormous room to push back, particularly in fraud cases where the final number can be more difficult to calculate. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, the guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. The judge must calculate the range correctly to begin a sentencing hearing, but then must weigh the other sentencing factors accordingly in arriving at a just sentence that is not greater than necessary. This matters enormously in fraud cases, where the loss table has long been criticized for producing ranges that overstate a defendant’s real culpability and can help lead to below guideline sentences. While sentences in fraud cases are often highly influenced by the loss calculation and the advisory guideline range, a proper investigation that begins long before sentencing, and zealous advocacy can result in below guideline and even non-custodial sentences like probation. A well-supported and detailed sentencing memorandum and meaningful investigation into a defendant’s background and circumstances that led to the commission of the crime are what frequently separates the advisory guideline number from the sentence ultimately imposed. If you have received a target letter, a grand jury subpoena, or have been charged with a federal financial crime, the time to build a strategy around a potential “loss” figure is now.]]>