Archive Page 2

Being Excused from State Criminal Court

Defendants often want to be excused from attending court. This might be, for example, because they must drive for hours (or even days) to reach the courthouse or they don’t want to miss work or school. It is up to the judiciary whether a person can be excused from court and policies vary by county and judge.

Some judges and counties require defendants to appear for every single court date unless specifically excused from attending court by a judge. When this is the case, defendants should plan to be present for every court appearance and should not ask a judge to be excused from court unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

Some judges will defer to the prosecutor and defense counsel on this issue to a certain degree; if both lawyers agree that the defendant may be excused from court, then the defendant will not need to appear. There will be no such agreement when the parties know a given court appearance is one where the defendant must be present (such as for a plea agreement) or it is one where the judge always requires the defendant to be present.

The defense attorney has no power to excuse a person’s presence from court. Ultimately, it is always up to a judge. If a judge allows the parties to reach an agreement as to this, defense counsel still must get the prosecutor’s agreement on the matter. The only thing the defense attorney can do is ask for permission. If the judge or the prosecutor denies that permission, then the defendant must be present. If the defendant fails to appear, he will likely receive a warrant for his arrest and risk forfeiture of the bond posted in his case.

Jeremy Richey

2010 Stats In Review (Post Generated by WordPress.com)

The stats helper monkeys at WordPress.com mulled over how this blog did in 2010, and here’s a high level summary of its overall blog health:

Healthy blog!

The Blog-Health-o-Meter™ reads This blog is doing awesome!.

Crunchy numbers

Featured image

A helper monkey made this abstract painting, inspired by your stats.

The average container ship can carry about 4,500 containers. This blog was viewed about 20,000 times in 2010. If each view were a shipping container, your blog would have filled about 4 fully loaded ships.

In 2010, there were 24 new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to 146 posts. There were 3 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 325kb.

The busiest day of the year was March 1st with 131 views. The most popular post that day was How to Understand Material on Judici — Part 1.

Where did they come from?

The top referring sites in 2010 were judici.com, jeremyrichey.com, Google Reader, blog.simplejustice.us, and google.com.

Some visitors came searching, mostly for judici, coles county courthouse, can a dui be expunged in illinois, beer can, and stack of money.

Attractions in 2010

These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.

1


How to Understand Material on Judici — Part 1
May 2008

2


How to Understand Material on Judici — Part 2
May 2008

3


How to Understand Material on Judici — Part 4
May 2008

4


Online Case Info Q&A
March 2009

5


How to Understand Material on Judici — Part 3
May 2008

DUI Filings Down in Coles County

In 2010, from what I could gather from Judici.com, there were 337 DUI cases filed in Coles County.

How does this compare to previous years?

2009: 373

2008: 354

2007: 302

As for other nearby counties, perhaps we can convince Effingham’s Scott Ealy to resume blogging long enough to update us on Effingham and surrounding counties?

Jeremy Richey

Can I Have “My Motion for Discovery?”

I get this question fairly often from clients.  When a client asks this question, he is not wanting a legal document filed in court (a Motion for Discovery), he is wanting the State’s response to the motion (police reports, videos, etc.).  For some reason, some clients refer to the police report and related materials as “my motion for discovery.”  I am not sure why this is, but it happens.  A motion for discovery is just a legal document asking for discovery; the response to the motion is something completely different.

Jeremy Richey

Jail for Speeders (Revisited)

In a previous post, I mentioned that speeding 40+ miles per hour over the limit is a Class A misdemeanor. Starting January 1, 2011, 30-39 miles per hour above the limit will become a Class B misdemeanor. Right now, 30-39 is a petty offense. The Public Act creating the new law also amends the Unified Code of Corrections to prohibit judicial supervision for the Class A speeding offense.

The text of the new Illinois speeding law is as follows:

(625 ILCS 5/11-601.5)

Sec. 11-601.5. Driving 30 miles per hour or more in excess of applicable limit.

(a) A person who drives a vehicle upon any highway of this State at a speed that is 30 miles per hour or more but less than 40 miles per hour in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit established under this Chapter or a local ordinance commits a Class B misdemeanor.

(b) A person who drives a vehicle upon any highway of this State at a speed that is 40 miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit established under this Chapter or a local ordinance commits a Class A misdemeanor.

UPDATE (8/25/11). Below you will find the current text of 625 ILCS 5/11-601.5 (emphasis added):

Sec. 11‑601.5. Driving 31 miles per hour or more in excess of applicable limit.

(a) A person who drives a vehicle upon any highway of this State at a speed that is 31 miles per hour or more but less than 40 miles per hour in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit established under this Chapter or a local ordinance commits a Class B misdemeanor.

(b) A person who drives a vehicle upon any highway of this State at a speed that is 40 miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit established under this Chapter or a local ordinance commits a Class A misdemeanor.

Jeremy Richey

Two Recent Activities

1.  Today, I presented material on petty traffic and DUI issues at the ISBA Solo and Small Firm Conference in Springfield, IL.  I very much enjoyed the experience and I am thankful to have been a part of it.

2.  I recently wrote a book review for The Champion.   My review is now online (click here).

Jeremy Richey

SFST Training

image of training certificate

This past weekend, I attended and completed a three-day course on DWI detection and standardized field sobriety testing.  This event, while for lawyers, contained the same training that police officers receive.  This course was time and money well spent.  My knowledge of field sobriety testing expanded exponentially.  I also gained a greater understanding and appreciation for what officers on the street go through.  Any lawyer who is serious about DUI defense should attend one of these courses.

Jeremy Richey

Can You Forcibly Resist a Blood Test?

WordPress records the search terms people use to find this blog. Some unknown person typed the above question in a search engine and found this blog. My answer follows.

It is physically and actually possible to forcibly resist a blood test. But, that is not what the questioner was asking. A better inquiry is whether a person can forcibly resist a blood test and not suffer adverse legal consequences.

Absent a search warrant, the police will probably not force a blood draw. The consequence for refusing a blood test (or urine or breath test) is that the person will receive a longer driver’s license suspension under the Illinois statutory summary suspension law than if the person had submitted to and failed testing.

What if the police have a search warrant authorizing a blood draw? In that case, the person really doesn’t have a choice: the person must submit to the blood draw. If the person forcibly resists the blood draw, further criminal charges in addition to the person’s DUI charge (such as obstructing a peace officer) may result.

Jeremy Richey

A Clever Ruse

As Scott Ealy drove down the interstate, a sign caught his eye: “Police Drug Checkpoint Ahead.”   Scott took a photo of the sign.

Such a checkpoint would be unlawful.  But what if the sign was just a ruse to get drivers to exit the interstate?

According to the Effingham Daily News (h/t: Scott Ealy), the checkpoint was a ruse:

Marion County Sheriff Jerry Devore said the sign warning motorists of a drug interdiction checkpoint ahead just before southbound traffic reached the the [sic] Kinmundy-Patoka exit — or milepost 127 — was only up for about 90 minutes before being taken down.

Devore admitted the sign was a ruse to get drug-possessing suspects off the interstate at an isolated exit with no services.

“Anyone from out of state would have no reason to pull off,” Devore said. Once off the interstate, deputies looked for Illinois Vehicle Code violations as a reason to initiate a traffic stop. Once the vehicles were stopped, deputies were able to look for drugs or other illegal items.

As described above, this ruse is probably OK.  (But, much is going to depend what happens after the stop.)

Why do I say this?  Consider the Eighth Circuit case of United States v. Carpenter.

In that case, the police set up a ruse checkpoint on the interstate and then looked for a reason to stop non-local vehicles that exited the interstate.  The defendant, who had out-of-state plates, exited the interstate.  When the defendant saw an officer following him, the defendant maneuvered to the side of the road in order to make a U-turn.  While on the side of the road, an officer stopped the defendant.  The defendant reportedly took the exit looking for a gas station, but there were not any gas stations at the exit.  The defendant appeared nervous, had a quarter tank of gas, and gave a travel route inconsistent with his car’s rental agreement.  The police brought a canine to the scene and the canine alerted to the presence of drugs in the defendant’s vehicle.  The police found and seized a quantity of cocaine.  Under the totality of these circumstances, the Court said, the police had reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention to let the canine sniff the vehicle and no Fourth Amendment violation existed.

With all that said, the police still can violate the Fourth Amendment while executing these ruses.  For example, if a car exits the interstate and travels in a normal manner without violating any traffic laws (and no other unusual circumstances exist), any stop of the car will be problematic.

Jeremy Richey

DUI Supervision: No Record?

Regarding Illinois DUI cases, one of the benefits of judicial supervision is that it prevents people from being convicted of DUI. As a matter of law, a person on supervision for an offense has not been convicted of the offense. But, this doesn’t mean that the DUI disappears in any way. A person should not equate the lack of a conviction with not having a record. DUI supervision can’t be expunged (officially erased), so there will always be an arrest and court record where a court sentences a person to DUI supervision.

So, what is the point of not being convicted of DUI? One of the most significant benefits of not being convicted deals with revocation of driving privileges. A sentence of DUI supervision will not trigger a revocation whereas a conviction will.

But note that a revocation in a given case is separate from any statutory summary suspension in the case.   Revocations are often on top of (in addition to) statutory summary suspensions.

Further note that, as a general rule, revocations are worse than suspensions.

Jeremy Richey

« Previous PageNext Page »


BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Jeremy J. Richey, Attorney at Law
© Jeremy J. Richey and The East Central Illinois Criminal Law & DUI Weblog, 2008-2011. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.