Modern forensic science has led to some great advancements in criminal justice. DNA analysis has secured convictions for violent crimes like rape and murder, but it has also led to the acquittal of wrongly convicted individuals who have spent years or decades in prison for crimes they did not commit.
It may seem inconceivable that a person can be charged with a DUI without even driving. After all, the principal element of the crime is that the accused was operating a motor vehicle. Nevertheless, there are countless people across the state of Illinois who are charged with drunk driving who are found asleep behind the wheel of a car that is not running, or even outside of their car in a parking lot.
It is against the law to drive a car while under the influence of marijuana in the state of Illinois. While this is true and in place to as a common safety measure, the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes has become as mainstream as becoming a law enforcement officer. While there are many people who now use it legally, there is an important question regarding the number of people who are “high” while behind the wheel.
It is likely that you picture a CEO or businessperson in a suit and tie when you hear the phrase "white collar crime." This is the stereotype of this type of crime: a powerful business person who used his or her position to take asset that don't belong to him or her. And in many cases, this holds true. But in many other cases, the accused person is a bank teller or a lower-level employee who was granted access to a company computer or vehicle.
Without question, one of the single most controversial aspects of our nation's criminal justice system is its reliance on wealth-based pretrial detention, meaning a system whereby prosperous defendants are readily able to post bail while their indigent counterparts must remain behind bars for weeks, months or even years while awaiting trial.
The notion of local or state law enforcement agencies seizing property in connection with the filing of charges probably doesn't sound especially shocking to most people. What may be shocking, however, is to learn that these property seizures can also occur absent the filing of any charges.
Last week, our blog discussed how the Supreme Court of the United States recently wrapped up what proved to be an exceptionally demanding 2016-17 term. Indeed, the nation's high court was called upon to decide a host of important cases, several of which had the potential to dramatically alter the legal landscape in the area of criminal law.
Monday marked the final day of the 2016-17 term for the Supreme Court of the United States and, as anticipated, it proved to be an exceptionally busy day. Indeed, the court released opinions in six cases, including the one examining President Trump's proposed travel ban.
Last week, we began discussing how the Supreme Court of the United States recently granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in Carpenter v. United States, a case that could have major implications for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
With all of the excitement on Capitol Hill last week owing to the testimony of former FBI director James Comey before a Senate Panel, it's possible that many people overlooked a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States to review an important case during their next term -- one that could have major implications for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.