Wheaton Criminal Defense Law Blog

About two dozen protesters were arrested at Chicago City Hall this week for speaking out against a planned closure of 54 public schools. The protesters had conducted marches and other protests over the past few days to show their disapproval for the school closings which are facing a vote by the board of education.

Whenever protesters are arrested there are always questions about whether or not the arrests violated their rights to free speech under the First Amendment. Speech and actions that go to an issue of public concern are the most strongly protected types of speech and police must be careful not to cross the line from protecting public safety to stifling discourse.

Former professional football player and sports announcer O.J. Simpson has asked a state court for a new trial, saying that he did not have adequate legal representation during a 2008 robbery and kidnapping trial.

It is very difficult to prove to a court that the assistance of an attorney was so inadequate that it warrants a new trial. Under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, all those charged with a criminal offense have the right to the effective assistance of counsel. However, it is very difficult to prove that an attorney was "ineffective" to the point of requiring a new trial. Often it involves proving that the outcome of the case would have been different if the attorney had followed professional standards of conduct.

An appeals court found that a state trooper acted within the bounds of his authority and that a court was correct not to suppress evidence that a limo driver had used breath mints during a drunk driving arrest. The driver entered a guilty plea to the charge of driving while intoxicated after the evidence was not suppressed.

The limo driver had passengers in his vehicle when he was pulled over by police for changing lanes without using his turn signal, causing a nearby motorcyclist to nearly collide with the vehicle. The officer completed his invesitgation of that incident and was about to tell the driver that he was free to go when he started to question the man about his use of breath mints. 

A federal magistrate recently denied the FBI's request for a warrant to look into someone who they find suspicious because of a large wire transfer from their bank account to an account outside of the country. The warrant request asked for a month-long search of the suspect's computer to investigate possible fraud, identity theft or violations of computer security laws.

The warrant request asked for significant latitude to use the spyware, with law enforcement officials seeking access to essentially all of the data stored on the computer. As many Chicago area readers know, we store a tremendous amount of information on our computers and access information stored elsewhere from our personal computers. Allowing law enforcement agents to have unfettered access through spyware to all of that information could expose people who are being investigated to significant invasions of privacy.