Chicago Criminal Defense Lawyer | Cook County Federal and State Crimes Attorney | Illinois Drug Crime Law Firm 2026-09-24T14:36:45Z https://www.goldbergdefense.com/feed/atom/ WordPress /wp-content/uploads/sites/1602988/2020/10/cropped-apple-touch-icon-32x32.png On Behalf of Law Offices of Darryl A. Goldberg https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48517 2026-09-23T14:37:55Z 2026-09-24T14:36:45Z

Illinois Supreme Court to Weigh in on Police Disciplinary Decisions Later this week, the Illinois Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a case that could reshape police accountability in Chicago for years to come over the exact disciplinary procedures for Chicago Police officers accused of the most serious misconduct. At issue is whether Chicago police officers should have their cases decided by the Chicago Police Board in public proceedings, or by a private arbitrator behind closed doors, when accused of conduct that could lead to their termination or suspension for over a year, which has mired these officers in recent years as the two sides fight for what they believe should be the proper venue. For officers, the Fraternal Order of Police’s President John Catazara has argued that officers should have the same arbitration rights as other public municipal employees, that is for them to be resolved by an arbitrator in a private setting. Reformers and the city, as well as Attorney General Kwame Raoul, have instead argued that public proceedings are essential to maintaining trust in CPD, particularly as it navigates the public consent decree enacted over 7 years ago in light of the murder of Laquan McDonald by a CPD officer, any good will of which Raoul argues would be upended if officers accused of grave misconduct were allowed to have their matters resolved outside the public record. In the balance hangs the fate of over 31 cases for officers who have had to wait as these fights have dragged on in the lower courts, with potentially large implications for those who have accused officers of misconduct and any civil actions they may have against the officers and the Chicago Police Department. 

State’s Attorney Calls for Electronic Monitoring Reform as Backlash Grows

Last month, Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke wrote in an op-ed that Cook County’s electronic monitoring program is “broken” and urged the Illinois legislature to overhaul the system in light of the changes from the SAFE-T Act which eliminated cash bail across the state. She argued that many of the issues with the program starts with the rapid expansion of the electronic monitoring program in the county, which has ballooned from 500 defendants to roughly 3,000 (the largest number of individuals on electronic monitoring in any jurisdiction in the country) after the responsibility shifted from the Cook County Sheriff’s Office to the Office of the Chief Judge of Cook County last year. Critically, of those 3,000, more than 327 of people enrolled in the program are “currently missing,” and many people in the program are charged with serious crimes such as murder or sex offenses. While highlighting advantages and well-meaning underlying thought regarding the SAFE-T Act that takes an person’s ability to pay for bail off the table, she argues that more has to be done to protect the public and judge’s shouldn’t have to resort to placing a person on electronic monitoring as a “third way,” since they cannot set cash bail to ensure compliance from released individuals. When Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke took office, she previously announced changes in policy for seeking pretrial detention in criminal matters, which opponents have argued have significantly increased the jail population of Cook County. The op-ed could be seen as an extension of some of these policies/goals which could result in more criminal defendants being held in pretrial custody. Clearly, there are growing tensions between reformers and government officials over the direction which the criminal justice system overseeing one of the largest population centers in the United States should go.]]> On Behalf of Law Offices of Darryl A. Goldberg https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48515 2026-09-23T14:36:27Z 2026-09-23T14:36:27Z

After an arrest, many Illinois drivers are surprised to learn that winning their DUI case in court doesn’t necessarily mean that they will get to keep their driver’s license and there are steps drivers have to proactively take to ensure they don’t lose their ability to drive, regardless of the outcome of the criminal case. In addition to the criminal case, which is generally prosecuted by the State’s Attorney’s Office in the county or a local municipal prosecutor, in most cases the Secretary of State’s Office will take action through a second administrative process known as a “Statutory Summary Suspension,” or SSS, on a defendant’s driver’s license of who either failed or refused chemical testing after a DUI arrest. Local courts can then hear challenges or petitions seeking to rescind the statutory summary suspension, which is considered a civil proceeding. Under Illinois’ implied consent framework, every person who drives on Illinois roads has already given implied consent to testing for a DUI, and a refusal can elongate any term of suspension from 6 months to a year for first time offenders, with longer suspensions for repeat offenders.  This procedure doesn't begin immediately, but will take effect after an individual has the ability to challenge their suspension in court. Unlike a criminal case, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the SSS doesn’t require a finding that the driver was actually impaired, but will be upheld if the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the driver was under the influence, if the driver was properly placed under arrest, if the driver was properly advised of the consequences of submitting to or refusing testing, and if the driver then failed or refused the test. Because the burden of proof and the legal questions are held to different standards, it’s entirely possible to beat a DUI criminal charge while the suspension is upheld under the aforementioned circumstances or proper challenges are not timely filed to the summary suspension. The evidence obtained that led to a summary suspension could also be challenged as illegally obtained in violation of a driver’s constitutional rights. In order to challenge a summary suspension a defendant driver must file a Petition to Rescind in court. If the defense never files the petition, or files one but doesn't prevail at the subsequent hearing, the suspension will go into effect regardless of the outcome in the underlying criminal case. For first time offenders, so long as their driving didn’t cause death or great bodily injury, Illinois drivers can seek permission to drive during the course of their suspension if they install a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (BAIID) on their vehicle, subject to certain restrictions and exclusion.  If you or a loved one has been arrested for DUI in Illinois, don’t assume that fighting the criminal charge is the only battle. The summary suspension of a license is a separate threat to your driving privileges, and it requires its own strategy and has different procedural requirements. An experienced criminal defense attorney can evaluate both sides of the case, the criminal charges and the summary suspension, and determine the best approach for protecting your rights, your ability to drive and generally looking out for all your interests including your liberty.]]> On Behalf of Law Offices of Darryl A. Goldberg https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48513 2026-09-22T22:55:23Z 2026-09-22T22:55:23Z

Federal Government Making Efforts to Move Inmates Closer to Release As soon as someone is sentenced to prison, they inevitably have the same thoughts, when will I get out? And can I make it happen sooner? Unfortunately, there is not a simple answer to the latter question, as there are many variables that can change when someone is ultimately released from prison. However, for the more than 150,000 people currently incarcerated in the federal system, there is a growing movement to try and accelerate that process for well-behaving inmates, motivated by both economic and humane concerns. Recently, whether through expanded use of minimum-security camps and transition housing, the underutilized international treaty transfer program, or the continued rollout of First Step Act earned time credits, new opportunities are emerging for eligible inmates and their families. Earlier this year, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) announced a new initiative to expand the use of its minimum-security camps as transitional placement sites for inmates preparing to reenter their communities. Although this policy does not mean inmates will necessarily be released from custody sooner, there are potential step downs in custodial levels that should make the custodial experience better. Under the new policy, institutions will begin transferring eligible individuals to camp facilities once they have received a Residential Reentry Center (RRC) or Home Confinement (HC) placement date. The BOP framed the initiative as an evidence-based approach to reducing recidivism, stating that camp placement, “provides a community-like environment while maintaining structured oversight and accountability,” with BOP Director William K. Marshall III stating that the program will “[ensure] inmates receive appropriate preparation, structure, and support prior to release [which is] is critical to reducing recidivism and enhancing public safety.” The initial implementation will prioritize inmates currently housed in low-security facilities who are appropriate for camp placement, however, several types of inmates are categorically excluded based on their offense, including sex offenders, deportable aliens, gang members, individuals requiring heightened monitoring, those with recent serious disciplinary infractions, and anyone whose placement would pose an identifiable risk to public safety. For those eligible, this new policy could be key in their rehabilitation and making their last months in custody easier as they transition to release.

Advocates Urge BOP to Reform a Rarely Used Tool for Non-Citizen Inmates

Many inmates currently housed in the BOP are non-citizens and are subject to deportation once they serve their time, leaving many to wonder why the US taxpayer is footing the bill for these inmates who will just leave the country at the conclusion of their sentence. A recent article highlighted an underutilized tool for such individuals, the International Prisoner Transfer Program, commonly known as the treaty transfer program, which could help reduce the federal prison population. The program allows eligible foreign national inmates to be transferred to prisons in their home countries to serve the remainder of their sentences when it is allowed/feasible. There are several caveats to the policy, including the fact that the inmate has to apply for the transfer, they have to meet certain BOP requirements, the inmate’s home country would have to accept the transfer of their citizen, and once there they are there they are still obligated to still serve out their custody term. However, offenders serving a sentence in their own home country can be closer to their friends and family. Depending on their country of origin/nationality, the custodial experience could even be better. Despite a broad framework to the regulation, the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General has previously found that the number of inmates actually approved for transfer remains small relative to the eligible population. That being said, for non-citizen inmates and their families, the treaty transfer program is worth exploring as a possibility for eligible inmates. In addition to these programs, there are many ways for inmates to shorten their time in custody, or at a minimum to serve it under less restrictive conditions, such as time for good behavior, credits for programs or reductions in sentences due to the First Step Act, as we have previously covered. But many of these opportunities do not present themselves automatically. Inmates and their families should be proactive, although the system can be quite complex and byzantine. If you or a loved one is serving a federal sentence and would like to explore whether any of these options may apply, contact an experienced federal criminal defense attorney who can help guide you.]]> On Behalf of Law Offices of Darryl A. Goldberg https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48510 2026-09-21T14:22:22Z 2026-09-21T14:22:22Z

Federal Government Making Efforts to Move Inmates Closer to Release As soon as someone is sentenced to prison, they inevitably have the same thoughts, when will I get out? And can I make it happen sooner? Unfortunately, there is not a simple answer to the latter question, as there are many variables that can change when someone is ultimately released from prison. However, for the more than 150,000 people currently incarcerated in the federal system, there is a growing movement to try and accelerate that process for well-behaving inmates, motivated by both economic and humane concerns. Recently, whether through expanded use of minimum-security camps and transition housing, the underutilized international treaty transfer program, or the continued rollout of First Step Act earned time credits, new opportunities are emerging for eligible inmates and their families. Earlier this year, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) announced a new initiative to expand the use of its minimum-security camps as transitional placement sites for inmates preparing to reenter their communities. Although this policy does not mean inmates will necessarily be released from custody sooner, there are potential step downs in custodial levels that should make the custodial experience better. Under the new policy, institutions will begin transferring eligible individuals to camp facilities once they have received a Residential Reentry Center (RRC) or Home Confinement (HC) placement date. The BOP framed the initiative as an evidence-based approach to reducing recidivism, stating that camp placement, “provides a community-like environment while maintaining structured oversight and accountability,” with BOP Director William K. Marshall III stating that the program will “[ensure] inmates receive appropriate preparation, structure, and support prior to release [which is] is critical to reducing recidivism and enhancing public safety.” The initial implementation will prioritize inmates currently housed in low-security facilities who are appropriate for camp placement, however, several types of inmates are categorically excluded based on their offense, including sex offenders, deportable aliens, gang members, individuals requiring heightened monitoring, those with recent serious disciplinary infractions, and anyone whose placement would pose an identifiable risk to public safety. For those eligible, this new policy could be key in their rehabilitation and making their last months in custody easier as they transition to release.

Advocates Urge BOP to Reform a Rarely Used Tool for Non-Citizen Inmates

Many inmates currently housed in the BOP are non-citizens and are subject to deportation once they serve their time, leaving many to wonder why the US taxpayer is footing the bill for these inmates who will just leave the country at the conclusion of their sentence. A recent article highlighted an underutilized tool for such individuals, the International Prisoner Transfer Program, commonly known as the treaty transfer program, which could help reduce the federal prison population. The program allows eligible foreign national inmates to be transferred to prisons in their home countries to serve the remainder of their sentences when it is allowed/feasible. There are several caveats to the policy, including the fact that the inmate has to apply for the transfer, they have to meet certain BOP requirements, the inmate’s home country would have to accept the transfer of their citizen, and once there they are there they are still obligated to still serve out their custody term. However, offenders serving a sentence in their own home country can be closer to their friends and family. Depending on their country of origin/nationality, the custodial experience could even be better. Despite a broad framework to the regulation, the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General has previously found that the number of inmates actually approved for transfer remains small relative to the eligible population. That being said, for non-citizen inmates and their families, the treaty transfer program is worth exploring as a possibility for eligible inmates. In addition to these programs, there are many ways for inmates to shorten their time in custody, or at a minimum to serve it under less restrictive conditions, such as time for good behavior, credits for programs or reductions in sentences due to the First Step Act, as we have previously covered. But many of these opportunities do not present themselves automatically. Inmates and their families should be proactive, although the system can be quite complex and byzantine. If you or a loved one is serving a federal sentence and would like to explore whether any of these options may apply, contact an experienced federal criminal defense attorney who can help guide you.]]> On Behalf of Darryl A. Goldberg https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48505 2026-09-02T13:43:07Z 2026-09-02T13:43:07Z

Interagency Crackdown on Trucking Industry Fraud Announced  Earlier this week, the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud launched what it called the most aggressive federal enforcement campaign in history targeting fraud in the commercial trucking industry. The joint announcement brought together the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Department of Transportation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), and the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, along with eight U.S. Attorneys from across the Midwest. According to the DOJ press release, these and other law enforcement agencies form the “Joint Task Force Crossroads of America,” a multi-state partnership spanning Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio between federal, state, and local agencies with the explicit aim to, “dismantle the fraud schemes harming American truckers, drivers and community safety” according to US Attorney General Todd Blanche. Immediately, the DOJ announced that it was shutting down 110 CDL training schools, citing their association with over 5,000 drivers who allegedly failed English language proficiency tests, with additional schools under investigation across 40 states, with allegation ranging from inadequate training facilities, unlicensed instructors, missing required documentation, to inadequate training facilities. The press release alleges that inadequate training at many of these facilities have been linked to 239 commercial motor vehicle-related fatalities, revealing the likely underlying reason for the unprecedented crackdown and criminal investigations.

Who is Under Investigation?

The press release details several named enforcement operations that are already underway, including investigations into illegal aliens who are subject to deportation already, those that the government believes are  unlawfully holding commercial driver’s licenses, trucking companies suspected of employing B1/B2 visa holders for domestic cargo transport, state DMV employees alleged to have accepted payments to help individuals bypass CDL requirements, medical practitioners accused of improperly certifying medical exams for CDL applicants, and generally companies alleged to be engaged in labor exploitation and visa fraud. As the Chicago Sun-Times reported two Illinois federal prosecutors, U.S. Attorney Steven Weinhoeft of the Southern District of Illinois and U.S. Attorney Greg Gilmore of the Central District of Illinois, were specifically named to the task force, meaning Illinois residents are likely to be thoroughly investigated over the coming months and years. In fact, the DOJ press release explicitly mentioned that the ICE Chicago Field Office has already conducted coordinated joint operations with Indiana State Police at weigh stations in the leadup to the announcement.  The scale and coordination of this initiative, along with the inclusion of two U.S. Attorneys from districts within the state, signal that the federal government is not simply conducting regulatory audits, but they are looking to build criminal cases against individuals in the industry. These investigations can have serious repercussions for individuals and companies, both monetarily and to one’s potential freedom. Given the scale, focus, and actions already announced, there is the potential for large-scale prosecutions against individuals and entities which will likely carry significant penalties including prison and fines, even for so-called “minor participants.”  If you are connected to the trucking industry in any capacity and have reason to believe you may be the subject of a federal investigation, it is critical to act quickly and hire an experienced federal criminal defense attorney. Federal investigations often involve months or even years of investigation, including surveillance, data collection, and potentially witness interviews before charges are ever filed. By the time you receive a so-called “target letter” letting you know of the investigation or agents appear at your door to “talk” the government may already have a substantial case built and your freedom could be at risk.]]> On Behalf of Darryl A. Goldberg https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48504 2026-08-27T20:43:02Z 2026-08-27T20:43:02Z

7th Circuit Rules that CSAM Possession Is Protected by the First Amendment As we have previously covered, the proliferation of A.I. technology has led an uncomfortable question for courts, namely how to treat computer-generated child sexual abuse materials (“CSAM”) and whether or not they are legal. While Congress has passed laws forbidding “deep fakes” or A.I. generated materials that depict actual people/minors in false sexual conduct, there is a broader question when it comes to the legality/ability to prosecute those who possess completed fabricated CSAM materials through A.I. technology. Recently, the Seventh Circuit handed down a decision that could reshape how federal courts approach charges involving explicitly A.I.-generated CSAM in certain situations. In United States v. Anderegg, a unanimous panel affirmed the dismissal of a federal possession of CSAM charge for a criminal defendant, holding that the statute he was being prosecuted under was unconstitutional as applied to a defendant who possessed A.I.-generated CSAM in his home that did not depict a real child. In the case at hand, Steven Anderegg, a software engineer with a reported “background in AI models,” used an open-source generative AI model to create hundreds of hyper-realistic images of prepubescent children engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Anderegg then allegedly sent some of those images to a minor via Instagram, which triggered a CyberTipline report from Meta to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (otherwise known as “NCMEC”) On a side note, there are various unrelated legal issues related to the reporting of tips to NCMEC and in turn how NCMEC reports the tips to law enforcement). After law enforcement linked the Meta account to Anderegg, they executed a search warrant on his home and devices, seizing them for further investigation that ultimately led to a four-count indictment, including three different charges of producing, distributing, and transferring the images to a minor and one count of possession of obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Anderegg moved to dismiss the possession count on First Amendment grounds, which the district court granted and the appeal followed. At oral argument, the government conceded that the images making up possession did not depict any actual child and they could not be linked to a real child, which became the fulcrum of the entire case and shaped the judges’ reasoning in arriving at their ruling in affirming the dismissal of that charge. In upholding the district court’s dismissal, the Seventh Circuit’s turned on the interplay of Supreme Court cases revolving around the interaction between the First Amendment, what is characterized as “obscene materials” and the right to possess them, and a 2002 case, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act’s ban on virtual CSAM because the material did not involve actual children and therefore did not implicate a government interest which would make the conduct illegal. While acknowledging the case raises serious implications given the nature of child pornography and the government’s desire to root out actual sexual abuse of minors, the 7th Circuit found that the Supreme Court has contemplated and rejected such reasoning in Free Speech Coalition, but did agree that, “Given the relentless advancement in artificial intelligence models, we have some concerns about the lines these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves.” In the concurrence, Circuit Court Judge John Z. Lee, joined by Judge Joshua P. Kolar, wrote separately explicitly asking for, “additional guidance from the Supreme Court regarding the intersection between the First Amendment and virtual CSAM,” quoting a law review article which stated that, “In 2002, the Court’s reasoning [in Free Speech Coalition] made sense: Technology was far less developed than it is today.” While standing by their reasoning given Supreme Court precedent, the Judges seemed to be inviting the Supreme Court to revisit their reasoning given the technological advancement of A.I., meaning this victory could be a short-lived one should the Supreme Court revisit the issue.

What This Means For Client Facing CSAM Charges

In the immediate aftermath of the ruling, at least in the 7th Circuit, Anderegg is now binding precedent and can be used to argue that mere possession of entirely A.I.-generated CSAM in one’s own home is constitutional under the First Amendment. Note, however, that the production, distribution, and transfer charges were not dismissed in the underlying case, meaning even entirely A.I.-generated CSAM can still lead to criminal charges, even in the 7th Circuit, depending on any conduct beyond mere possession. However, the underlying reasoning beyond the Anderegg decision could further open the door to other general challenges to A.I.-generated CSAM-related charges. For now, criminal defense attorneys in the 7th Circuit and beyond should understand that A.I.-generated CSAM possession charges may be subject to dismissal, but the Supreme Court could ultimately revisit the issue and clarify or redraw the lines of what is protected under the First Amendment.]]> On Behalf of Darryl A. Goldberg https://www.goldbergdefense.com/?p=48503 2026-08-24T05:08:30Z 2026-08-21T11:23:10Z

How Automatic License Plate Reader Surveillance Networks Are Spreading Across Illinois If you have driven on a road in Illinois recently, or in many areas of the United States for that matter, there is a good chance a camera recorded your license plate, your vehicle’s make and model, its color, and the exact time and place it was seen by the camera. That data is then uploaded to a centralized, searchable database accessible by law enforcement agencies and their law enforcement officials across the state or country, including agencies you may have never heard of in jurisdictions you may have never been. As we have previously covered, these automatic license plate reader (ALPR) systems (which include perhaps the most ubiquitous and covered company, Flock Safety) have received increasing scrutiny over the past several months as the public has become increasingly aware of the awesome, and in some cases terrifying, amount of data they collect on ordinary citizens. These private companies are responsible for the installation of the systems and storing the mass quantities of information they collect, which have little to no government oversight, worrying observers. A recent Forbes report revealed that the Schaumburg Police Department, a Chicagoland suburb, is sharing its automated license plate reader data with more than 400 agencies through the Vigilant/Motorola LEARN, worrying privacy experts. The finding came from a public records request filed by a Georgia-based open-records researcher, Jason Hunyar, whose work helps the website “Have I Been Flocked?” which allows users to see if their vehicle has been the subject of a police inquiry, though the website warns it does not have complete data available to the Flock website’s users as it relies on Freedom of Information Act or Open Record Requests, and other publicly available records, which some law enforcement agencies do not have to comply with or do not report their searches. What the report found that is perhaps most troubling is that in Illinois, those 400-plus agencies are not limited to just traditional police departments and include university campus police, railroad police, park districts, the Illinois Attorney General’s office, and the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, amongst others. Each one of them can query a database that logs the plate, location, and timestamp of every vehicle that passes a network camera. These networks are frequently touted as a tool for helping fight crime, but concerned citizens worry about government or private agencies overreaching and/or false arrests/investigations as the accuracy and effectiveness of these dragnets of data have been frequently found to commit errors in their daily use. Effectively, given the access to the information is available to the other subscribing agencies of the private companies that provide these networks, the local community that allowed for the cameras to be placed on their street corners has no control over how that data is ultimately used, or by whom, hence the growing skepticism. Flock’s Expansion of A.I. Tools Leaves Many Worried About Future Abuse According to a recent WIRED investigation into Flock Safety’s most recent software developments, a new investigation tool may be its most troubling update for privacy advocates. For years, Flock has told the public that its cameras “cannot recognize, identify, or track individuals,” but their new technology update may render that assertion obsolete. Reporters discovered that Flock has built an A.I.-powered tool, originally called Nightshift and now known as OS Investigate, that lets police search for people and vehicles by searching through patterns of movement alone. The tool does not require a license plate number, a name, or even a specific crime to initiate a search, but allows a law enforcement official with access to their system to prompt the software to search a location, a timeframe, and/or a behavioral pattern, and the system will identify matching vehicles. Though not limited to these parameters, the tool comes with 69 prewritten search prompts that officers can select, edit, or customize, some of which require no plate, name, or physical description at all. The system can cross-reference vehicle scans with police case files, arrest records, 911 dispatch logs, ballistics results, and commercial identity databases containing Social Security numbers, dates of birth, phone numbers, email addresses, and lists of relatives and associates of those whose vehicles match the desired location, timeframe, or behavior. Effectively, anyone who was in the vicinity of a crime or travels through a certain area of police inquiry at some arbitrary time could find themselves or their family members being investigated by police regardless of their reasons for being in the area of interest to any law enforcement official. In short, Flock’s camera network has evolved from a system that checks plates against hot lists and APBs into a tool that can generate suspects using A.I. from scratch. These are not purely theoretical concerns. Recent audits in states like Georgia have led to criminal charges against officers and deputies for allegedly using plate-reader networks to stalk ex-partners, track personal acquaintances, and spy on neighbors. In addition, while the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures the law and its protections have not necessarily caught up with this technology. With the proliferation and improvements of these surveillance technologies, many wonder if Constitutional rights are being eroded, if not outright eliminated in the future. For anyone charged with a crime in Illinois, the proliferation and access of ALPR surveillance create new and serious issues that could affect how a case unfolds once discovery reveals how an investigation was conducted and if there are legal challenges available to a defendant. Expect these issues to be heavily litigated in the near future.]]> On Behalf of Darryl A. Goldberg 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 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 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.]]>