Congratulations are in order for two of our clients and Attorney Tina M. Gagliano. She successfully won two cases involving speeding in a construction zone citations last week.

The first speeding in a work zone ticket was dismissed on our motion based upon Illinois Supreme Court Rule 504.

Our other client received a verdict of "not guilty" as to the charge of speeding in a construction zone after a bench trial in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court of Will County.

Way to go Tina! To see more about traffic and criminal defense attorneys at Kathryn L. Harry & Associates, P.C. by visiting: http://www.youraffordabledefense.com/

Illinois Supreme Court Justice Burke delivered an opinion recently on the issue of whether a passenger in a car may be lawfully searched after being stopped initally for a seatbelt violation when the officer found a warrant for the passenger's arrest outstanding upon a check of the identification of the passenger. No. 105457 People v. Bailey Filed 2/5/09 (LJD) In the case from Winnebago County, a county sheriff’s officer saw a car with a driver and passenger who were not wearing seat belts. The officer stopped the vehicle. After the occupants provided identification, a warrant check revealed that this defendant, who was the front seat passenger, had an outstanding arrest warrant for domestic battery. The defendant was arrested and the car was searched incident to the arrest. The search revealed cocaine. Defendant was charged and convicted of possession with intent to deliver. On appeal, defendant complained that his trial counsel should have made a motion to suppress the cocaine. The defendant argued that such a motion would have resulted in the suppression of the evidence that was found in the car because there is statutory law providing that officers may not “search or inspect” a vehicle passenger solely for failure to wear a seat belt. His theory was that if the contraband would have been suppressed, then he would not have been convicted. In this decision, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected this argument finding it is okay to do a warrant check on the passenger because it is simply an electronic search for a public document. Neither was there any constitutional or statutory violation in the search incident to arrest. The conviction stands. Food for thought....http://www.youraffordabledefense.com

Illinois Traffic Laws

http://www.youraffordabledefense.com/PracticeAreas/Traffic-Violations.asp

New distracted driving law: There is a proposed bill waiting for approval in Springfield that affects all of us in Illinois! A driver can be ticketed for "distracted driving" if the defendant is, in the officer's opinion, distracted by texting, reading a map, grooming, among other things. Such a ticket carries with it a double fine! Granted, an officer can not pull a driver over for distracted driving like he/she can for not wearing your seatbelt. But if the driver commits some other driving error, like improper lane usage, speeding, an accident, DUI, the officer can ticket the driver for distracted driving and the fine of the underlying offense is doubled.

Comments?

New Law for Violating an Order of Protection

As of January 1, 2009, the Court will now have the authority to require defendants accused of violating an order of protection to wear or carry a GPS-tracking device. This device will alert both the authorities and the parties to the order of protection if the defendant enters a restricted zone.

Pursuant to the new law, the Court may order the defendant to carry or wear a GPS device at any of the following times:
1) As a condition of bail after being charged with a violation of an order of protection;
2) As a condition of probation for violating an order of protection;
3) As a condition of conditional discharge after a conviction for a violation of an order of protection;
4) As a condition of early release because of a grant of good conduct credit after a conviction of an order of protection; or
5) As a condition of parole or mandatory supervised release after a conviction of a violation of an order of protection.

Furthermore, this new law increases the fines for every conviction of violating an order of protection by a minimum of $200.00. Additionally, effective January 1, 2008, every time an order of protection is issued, the defendant will now have to undergo a mandatory evaluation by a partner abuse intervention program. It will also be mandatory for the defendant to follow all recommendations of said evaluation. Failure to undergo the evaluation or follow the recommendations will constitute a violation of the order of protection.


Public Act 095-0773

http://www.senatedem.ilga.gov/GH_ShowArticle.asp?HID=823&CATID=11

MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL ENCOURAGES CONCEALMENT OF BREATH TESTS' CRITICAL FLAWS
Minnesota Attorney General Encouraged Concealment of Breath Tests' Critical Flaws Roseville, MN. June 5th, 2008 ---- Criminal Defense Attorney Chuck Ramsay announced today that he will intercede in The Minnesota Department of Public Safety's federal lawsuit against intoxilyzer manufacturer CMI of Kentucky, Inc.
In March 2008, The Minnesota Attorney General's office filed a federal suit against CMI on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. The suit alleges that CMI breached the contract for the sale and maintenance of a fleet of evidentiary breath test instruments to be used by the State, for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting the crime of DWI. In that contract, CMI agreed to sell and maintain the fleet of instruments and to release information pertaining to each respective instrument when ordered to do so by the courts. CMI also expressly agreed that any intellectual property material originating and arising out of the contract would become the sole property of the State. CMI breached both of those obligations.
Ramsay claims the state filed suit only in response to judges' complaints of aggressive litigation by criminal defense attorneys demanding access to the software from the courts.
Ramsay states that as early as 2006, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension knew its 200 plus intoxilyzers were malfunctioning. Minnesota's Intoxilyzer 5000 displays a driver's alcohol results on its LED readout; yet sporadically records a higher result on the final test record. The state discovered this and other fatal defects after hastily installing the current Intoxilyzer software in 2005. This prompted the BCA to complain to CMI about the discovered oddities. A BCA employee sent the complaint via email to five CMI representatives and four BCA employees.
This email uncovered by Ramsay exposed what Ramsay calls a smoking gun, evidencing the need for independent review of the Intoxilyzer's software. The State continues to use the bug-riddled software to operate its more than 200 Intoxilyzers, administered to nearly 34,000 drivers annually.
According to the BCA employee, the Attorney General's office, fearing an escalation in the so-called source challenge, advised the BCA to wait until the challenge had lost momentum.
Ramsay intends to file a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit the AG filed against CMI, a Kentucky corporation. "Its clear the AG will not protect the rights of Minnesotan's in that law suit. I'm intervening to ensure justice prevails. Otherwise, the AG will use this case only for appearance."
"These black boxes not only deprive citizens' of their right to drive, but also put innocent people in jail. The Minnesota Attorney General, our state's chief prosecutor, chose to protect the interests of a secretive, foreign company rather than fight for the constitutional rights of Minnesota citizens. Most alarming, is that the AG encouraged the cover-up of a fatally flawed breath machine that the public, police and courts believed, and still believe, to be 100% accurate."

Visit our website.

Visit our website at www.youraffordabledefense.com.