Chicago Criminal Lawyer Blog

As a Chicago criminal lawyer, I have too often encountered situtations in which police, after roughing up or beating a person during an arrest, charge them with battery to a police officer, resisting arrest, or obstruction of justice in order to cover their tracks. For example, according to journalists, after beating the unarmed man in the video, Streamwood Illinois police charged him with resisting arrest and threatening a police officer. This article discusses this phenomenon and outlines some of the ways to beat false charges of battery to a police officer in Illinois.

First, what is battery to a police officer? Battery to a police officer is known in Illinois by its legal name of "Aggravated Battery" or "Aggravated Battery to a Police Officer." Aggravated Battery is the enhanced version of "Simple Battery" which is a misdemeanor and occurs when a person makes physical contact with another person to either injure, insult, or provoke them. Generally, a simple battery that does not cause great bodily harm remains a simple battery. However, when a simple battery is committed against a police officer, that simple battery becomes "Aggravated Battery" which can be as severe as a class 1 felony punishable by 4-15 years or $25,000. 720 ILCS 5/12-4.

What are some of the ways you can beat charges of Simple or Aggravated Battery to a Police Officer?

(1) Video is key. As can be seen in the above clip, unlike a self-serving police report, a video can prove what actually happened. If a video exists in your case it could be the difference between victory and defeat but it must be found and preserved before it is destroyed.

(2) You have a legal right to defend yourself against an officer who uses excessive force. Although normally a person has no right to use force to resist even an unlawful arrest, the use of excessive force invokes the right of self-defense under Illinois law.

(3) Use a history of violence or misconduct to show that the cop was the true aggressor. As the accused, you have a right under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to confront your accuser, including in some cases the right to inspect the officer's personnell record. An officer who beats an unarmed man or woman and then charges them with battery, aggravated battery, resisting arrest, or obstructing a police officer, is a bully, and bullies usually have a history of violent behavior. If so, under Illinois law, that history of violence can be used to show that the cop was the true aggressor.

(4) The jury is society's conscience. Although judges are sometimes reluctant to find that an officer has acted illegally or testified dishonestly, juries are less hesitant to do so. If your back is against the wall and no plea deal is acceptable, a trial by a jury may be the best way to defeat the accusation.

(5) Legal defenses. Legal and technical defenses may apply to your case and are best discussed in person.

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato once posed the question "Who guards over the guardians?" In other words, who polices the police? While the great majority of police officers are honorable men and women who keep society safe from dangerous criminals, what happens when the very people who are supposed to guard us from criminals become criminals themselves? Americans cannot afford the millions of settlement dollars paid to victims of cops who have an anger management problem, are having a bad day, or who are just naturally brutish; a recent study found that police misconduct has cost Illinois taxpayers $214 million. If you are a victim of a brutal police action and now have to defend yourself against accusations that you were in fact the aggressor, you are on the front lines of a war against an evil that has plagued humanity since the beginning of civilization: government sponsored abuse of power. But you are not alone in this fight. The founding fathers, in their eternal genius, have provided you with the right to confront your accuser, the presumption of innocence, and the right to trial by jury, to help you along the way.

Continue reading "The Use of Battery to a Police Officer Charges to Cover Up Police Brutality" »

Ever wonder whether you have a right to prevent others from causing a disturbance near you while you worship or conduct religious rituals? As a Chicago lawyer I have had the privilege of advising and representing leaders of Chicago's religious community using the Constitution's First Amendment Freedom of Religion protections. I have also had the privilege of defending the First Amendment Freedom of Speech rights of people prosecuted for their words. Nothing, be it a local ordinance, a police action, or a federal law trumps a Constitutional protection; it is as close to absolute as you can get in the law. So, what happens when the exercise of two constitutional rights, Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, conflict with each other?

Consider the recent case of the Chicago Church of Scientology. In late 2010 a group of protestors picketed the Scientology's Chicago Church during one of its religious services. The Church called the police citing their First Amendment right to conduct religious services as well as a Chicago law that banned protests within 150 feet and 30 minutes of a religious service or house of worship. One of the protestors was arrested. He challenged the Chicago law saying that it violated his First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech and he won. The City of Chicago recently announced that it will no longer enforce the law that blocked protesters from causing a disturbance outside of places of worship or near religious services.

Church of Scientology spokeswoman Rebecca Cusano thinks it ironic that protestors are "crying freedom" when their protests are interfering with Scientologists' free exercise of religion. The ACLU on the other hand says that is normal for a protest to be aimed at an audience that would strongly prefer not to hear the message and that the Constitution protects the right of protest.

First Amendment law and recent court opinions indicate that they are both right. Chicago's decision comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Westboro Baptist Church case holding that members of that Church could picket military funerals with signs such as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", "Priests Rape Boys," and "You're Going to Hell." The Supreme Court reasoned that, while the First Amendment protects the right to Freedom of Religion, our nation also chooses to protect Freedom of Speech, even obnoxious speech, in order to encourage public debate. The recent Westboro Baptist and Chicago Scientology cases indicate that American courts will protect First Amendment Freedom of Speech rights even if they might disturb religious services and rituals.

The Founding Fathers believed not only in the moral correctness of protecting the right to Freedom of Speech and Religion, but also in its practical benefits. Freedom of speech encourages a "marketplace of ideas" that, while heated at times, aids in the search for truth. Similarly, Freedom of Religion creates more peace and prosperity than religious intolerance. As Thomas Jefferson said: "[W]e have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." Until humankind can rid itself of abusers of power, the First Amendment's Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech protections provide the best defense against tyrants and overreaching government. Still, while the law might permit even obnoxious speech, common sense and decency dictate that Scientologists should be left alone to freely worship and army dads should be left in peace to lay their dead to rest.