183 episodes

This podcast covers Illinois criminal law updates relevant to Illinois police officers. All the latest changes in Illinois search and seizure case law, DUI updates, evidentiary issues, interrogation law, and everything else important to law enforcement officers is covered here. The host is an Illinois lawyer and former prosecutor who follows the law closely and uses this podcast to report significant changes and developments. Police officers through out the state rely on this program to stay informed and prepared. Audio law nuggets for police officers, that's the ticket!

Police Nuggets Police Nuggets

    • Courses

This podcast covers Illinois criminal law updates relevant to Illinois police officers. All the latest changes in Illinois search and seizure case law, DUI updates, evidentiary issues, interrogation law, and everything else important to law enforcement officers is covered here. The host is an Illinois lawyer and former prosecutor who follows the law closely and uses this podcast to report significant changes and developments. Police officers through out the state rely on this program to stay informed and prepared. Audio law nuggets for police officers, that's the ticket!

    Birchfield v North Dakota | An Audio Case Summary

    Birchfield v North Dakota | An Audio Case Summary

    Birchfield v. North Dakota, SCOTUS No. 14–1468. Argued April 20, 2016—Decided June 23, 2016. Episode 186 (Duration 8:34).

    May the State criminalize the failure to comply with implied consent laws? Implied Consent Still Alive and Well, Forced Blood Draws Still Require a Warrant.

    Holding

    Because breath tests are significantly less intrusive than blood tests and in most cases amply serve law enforcement interests, the court said that a breath test, but not a blood test, may be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving. As in all cases involving reasonable searches incident to arrest, a warrant is not needed in this situation.

    3 Cases

    There were actually 3 consolidated cases each of them turning on whether or not the state could criminalize the failure to comply with implied consent laws.

    Two defendants were threatened with prosecution for failure to give blood; one defendant was charged for not blowing.

    Issue

    Thus, success for all three petitioners depended on the proposition that the criminal law ordinarily may not compel a motorist to submit to the taking of a blood sample or to a breath test unless a warrant authorizing such testing is issued by a magistrate.

    If, on the other hand, such warrantless searches comport with the Fourth Amendment, it follows that a State may criminalize the refusal to comply with a demand to submit to the required testing, just as a State may make it a crime for a person to obstruct the execution of a valid search warrant.



    Illinois DUI Resource Page

    Check out the Illinois DUI Resource Pageto learn more about DUI in Illinois.



    Connected Issues

    SCOTUS, then had to determine if the searches demanded in these cases were consistent with the Fourth Amendment. This is so because when a law enforcement officer claims authority to search a home under a warrant, he announces in effect that the occupant has no right to resist the search.

    If such warrantless searches are constitutional, there is no obstacle under federal law to the admission of the results that they yield in either a criminal prosecution or a civil or administrative proceeding.

    Analysis – Search Incident To Arrest Doctrine

    The court applied the search incident to arrest doctrine and noted it is a categorical rule. Since breath tests do not “implicate significant privacy concerns”, (no more intrusion than blowing up a party balloon). Blood tests are a different matter.

    Yes, McNeely distinguished between “easily disposable evidence” over “which the suspect has control” and evidence, like blood alcohol evidence, that is lost through a natural process “in a gradual and relatively predictable manner.”

    But McNeely concerned only one exception to the usual warrant requirement, the exception for exigent circumstances, that exception has always been understood to involve an evaluation of the particular facts of each case.

    Here, by contrast, the search-incident-to-arrest exception is duly at play.

    Holding

    Breath Tests

    Having assessed the effect of BAC tests on privacy interests and the need for such tests, the Court concluded that the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving.

    The impact of breath tests on privacy is slight, and the need for BAC testing is great.

    Blood Tests

    Blood tests are significantly more intrusive, and their reasonableness must be judged in light of the availability of the less invasive alternative of a breath test.

    Thus, the police generally will need a warrant to get blood from a driver. The court said there must be a limit to the consequences to which motorists m...

    • 14 min
    DUI On A Bridge Causes Huge Jurisdiction Problem

    DUI On A Bridge Causes Huge Jurisdiction Problem

    People v. Lampert, 2019 IL App (5th) 180248 (May). Episode 640 (Duration 16:08)







    Defendant crashes on the bridge from Illinois to Kentucky fun jurisdictional SNAFU ensues.























    Subscribe: Apple | Google | Spotify | Android | RSS | Direct Download

    APPLE PODCASTS GOOGLE PODCASTS

    SPOTIFY ANDROID RSS

    DIRECT DOWNLOAD







    Gist







    Kentucky police handled an Illinois DUI.







    The Illinois – Kentucky Border







    In Illinois v. Kentucky, 500 U.S. 380, 389-90 (1991), after declaring that the boundary between the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the State of Illinois was the low-water mark along the Ohio River’s northern shore as it existed in 1792, the United States Supreme Court remanded the case “to the Special Master for such further proceedings as may be necessary to prepare and submit an appropriate decree for adoption by the Court, locating the 1792 line.”







    In December 1994, after such proceedings were held, the Special Master filed a report with the Court advising that the United States Geological Survey had used 7355 geodetic coordinate points to identify the 1792 low-water mark as nearly as it could presently be determined and had prepared maps identifying a proposed boundary line based on those coordinates. Illinois v. Kentucky, Report of Special Master, Original No. 106 (1994) 6-9.







    The decree ordered that copies of the decree and copies and prints of Joint Exhibits 3 through 26 be filed with the Secretary of State of Illinois, the Secretary of State of Kentucky, and the county clerk’s offices of the Kentucky and Illinois counties along the Ohio River, including Massac and McCracken. Id. In January 1995, the Court adopted the Special Master’s report and entered the proposed decree. Illinois v. Kentucky, 513 U.S. 177 (1995).







    The Brookport Bridge







    The bridge is about 1 mile long. 







    Prior to this case, there had been an agreement with Illinois to where Kentucky would police every bit of the bridge, and Illinois would conduct maintenance on every bit of the bridge. The agreement as to the policing of the entire bridge had been abandoned after the K...

    • 16 min
    When A Perpetrator Description Can Be So Detailed And So Good It Damages The Photo Lineup (Photos Enclosed)

    When A Perpetrator Description Can Be So Detailed And So Good It Damages The Photo Lineup (Photos Enclosed)

    People v. Clifton, 2019 IL App (1st) 151967 (April). Episode 632 (Duration 8:20)







    Unduly suggestive ID, you make the call photos provided here. ** This opinion has photos.























    Subscribe: Apple | Google | Spotify | Android | RSS | Direct Download

    APPLE PODCASTS GOOGLE PODCASTS

    SPOTIFY ANDROID RSS

    DIRECT DOWNLOAD







    Charges & Sentence







    Defendant was found guilty of armed robbery and sentenced to 35 years in prison (20 years for the underlying offense and 15 years for the mandatory firearm add-on). 







    The Crime







    2 men walked up to a group of 4 people (1 man & 3 women) and rob them.







    One man said “you know what this is, it’s a robbery” and then pointed a gun at them. The man pointed the gun as close as one inch from one of the victim’s face.







    The man took two phones from the victim’s pants pocket. The other man took items from the women. The men then got into a Jeep and drove away.







    The Description







    The victim described the armed offender as having long dreads, a blue hoodie, all white low top Nikes, and a black Jeep.







    A second victim described the man with the gun as having “dreads” and wearing a blue or black hoodie and white shoes.







    One of other lady’s said that the man with the gun wore white gym shoes, jogging pants, and a dark black or blue hoodie. Also, the man “had a scar or a tattoo” on his face.







    Issue







    Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress identification. He contends that the procedures used by the Chicago Police Department were unduly suggestive because he was the only participant in the lineup wearing a dark sweatshirt, white shoes, had dreadlocks and a tattoo on his face.















    Defendant’s Burden







    First, the defendant bears the burden to show the pretrial lineup as “impermissibly suggestive.”







    If the defendant successfully makes the showing, the burden shifts to the State to present clear and convin...

    • 8 min
    DUI Probable Cause And Chicken Wing Hot Sauce In Your Beard

    DUI Probable Cause And Chicken Wing Hot Sauce In Your Beard

    People v. Bailey, 2019 IL App (3d) 180396 (May). Episode 631 (Duration 15:01)







    Food in your beard is not particularly indicative of anything.























    Subscribe: Apple | Google | Spotify | Android | RSS | Direct Download

    APPLE PODCASTS GOOGLE PODCASTS

    SPOTIFY ANDROID RSS

    DIRECT DOWNLOAD







    Charges







    The State charged defendant with two counts of DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(1), (a)(2)), as well as other traffic offenses.







    Issue







    Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, alleging that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest him.









    Search & Seizure Resource Page

    To see more

    Illinois Search And Seizure Resources and case law go here.







    Facts







    Truck gets stopped for speeding.







    When the officer approached defendant’s vehicle, he first noticed defendant “had an orange, greasy substance in his beard,” which appeared to be some sort of food.







    The officer testified that defendant’s “hands were very slow and deliberate” as he retrieved those items, but that defendant did not drop or fumble anything. He also noticed that defendant seemed “to be staring almost through me, as if he was having a hard time focusing.”







    The officer asked defendant about the substance in his beard and learned that it was sauce from Buffalo Wild Wings, a restaurant at which defendant had recently eaten. Apparently, defendant had been unaware of the sauce in his beard.







    Is That Weird?







    The officer found it “unusual in general” that a person would have food on their face and not know about it. Interestingly, the officer testified that he did not notice anything unusual about defendant’s eyes and did not observe anything unusual about defendant’s speech.







    No red eyes or thick tongue.







    He did notice a “sweet odor” emanating from the vehicle, but he did not know what the odor was.







    The Cans

    • 15 min
    Dropsy, Smells-Me, Front Seating, and Other Testilying Testimony Has To Be Weighed On It’s Own Merit

    Dropsy, Smells-Me, Front Seating, and Other Testilying Testimony Has To Be Weighed On It’s Own Merit

    People v. Campbell, 2019 IL App (1st) 161640 (April). Episode 630 (Duration 11:07)







    Court is not insensitive to claims of “dropsy” testimony and “testilying.”























    Subscribe: Apple | Google | Spotify | Android | RSS | Direct Download

    APPLE PODCASTS GOOGLE PODCASTS

    SPOTIFY ANDROID RSS

    DIRECT DOWNLOAD







    Charges







    Campbell was charged with nine counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(C)) stemming from a traffic stop. He got one year in prison.







    Sees A Gun







    Due to a spade of recent shootings police were patrolling in unmarked convert vehicles. 







    Police stopped in front and behind a double parked car. Police immediately smelled cannabis. Defendant opened a rear door and started to run until told to get back in the car and he complied.







    As Campbell was returning to the Durango, an officer saw him retrieve a handgun with a wooden grip, later identified as a Smith & Wesson .38-caliber revolver, from his waistband and throw it onto the floorboard of the back seat.







    Campbell then got in and shut the door.







    Arrested







    The officer drew his service weapon and immediately began yelling “gun” to inform the other officers, who were surrounding the vehicle. Defendant was removed from the Durango and placed into custody.







    The incident happened within seconds.







    Defendant’s Story







    Defendant did not have a firearms owner’s identification card. He was just getting a ride home and the car stopped to let him out. When he got out police yelled at him so he got back in the car. At no point did he ever have a handgun on his person.







    Trial Court Believes The Officer







    The court noted that every witness has a bias, but it found that the officers’ testimony was consistent and credible and the varying terminology as to how the gun arrived on the floorboard was insignificant.







    Trial Court Didn’t Believe Defendant

    • 11 min
    3 Districts All Have Said The Smell Of Weed Still Justifies A Car Search

    3 Districts All Have Said The Smell Of Weed Still Justifies A Car Search

    People v. Rice, 2019 IL App (3d) 170134 (April). Episode 623 (Duration 7:36)







    A strong indication from the 3rd district on what the smell of weed means for a car search.























    Subscribe: Apple | Google | Spotify | Android | RSS | Direct Download

    APPLE PODCASTS GOOGLE PODCASTS

    SPOTIFY ANDROID RSS

    DIRECT DOWNLOAD







    Charges







    Defendant Jeremiah Paige Rice was charged with one count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 646/60(b)(4) (methamphetamine possession) and was given 11 years.







    Facts







    Illinois State Police stopped defendant headed west on Interstate 80 for traveling 75 miles per hour in a 70-mile-per-hour zone. Defendant’s car had valid plates and was registered as a rental vehicle out of New Mexico.







    When he stopped defendant, the driver of the vehicle had rolled his window down and was showing his hands.







    Trooper smelled a strong odor of burnt cannabis when he approached the passenger side window of defendant’s vehicle.







    Defendant provided his identification and rental agreement for the vehicle. Defendant was cooperative and handled himself in a calm and collected manner. Trooper took defendant’s documents and returned to his squad car. After running a background check, he reported that defendant’s driver’s license was valid. He then decided to run defendant’s criminal history.







    Trooper called for backup because he planned to execute a search of the vehicle. 







    He did not observe any weapons or drugs in plain view inside the car. Based on the smell of cannabis, he believed that he had probable cause to search the vehicle for drugs. After backup arrived, Trooper asked defendant to exit the vehicle.







    The Search







    He escorted him to the back of the vehicle and informed him that he was going to conduct a search of his person. Trooper located a bulge in defendant’s right pants pocket, which he believed to be contraband. He pulled out a plastic bag of a leafy substance that looked like cannabis.







    Trooper placed defendant in handcuffs and put him i...

    • 7 min

Top Podcasts In Courses