You are walking down the street minding your own business. A cop approaches you and starts asking questions. After a few moments, the cop decides to frisk you and discovers illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia in your pockets. You are arrested and charged with possession.

Is this legal? Can the police just “stop and frisk” you without a warrant? Unfortunately, in many cases they can and do. Illinois courts afford police wide discretion to conduct stop-and-frisk searches where a “reasonably prudent person” would believe his or her “safety was in danger.”

In theory, police are entitled to conduct these types of warrantless searches to protect against a person with a dangerous weapon who might try to hurt someone. But in practice, stop-and-frisk often leads to over-broad policing that unfairly targets certain groups. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois notes that Chicago police disproportionately target African-Americans, who represented “72 percent of stops, yet constitute just 32 percent of the city’s population.” Additionally, the majority of stop-and-frisks do not recover dangerous weapons or any other illegal activity.

Illinois Court Says Officer Had “Reasonable” Suspicion of Man With Hands in His Pockets

Yet despite the constitutional and moral problems it raises, Illinois courts are still reluctant to second-guess police. In one recent Illinois case, a state appeals court rejected a defendant’s efforts to suppress evidence obtained in a warrantless stop-and-frisk.

The case actually began with a wholly unrelated crime. A police officer in Danville, Illinois, responded to a report of a burglary. Arriving at the scene, the officer noticed a man – the defendant in this case – walking down the street. The officer started to question the man regarding the burglary, i.e. did he see anyone fleeing the area.

The officer quickly turned his attention from the burglary to the defendant. The officer thought it was suspicious that the defendant was keeping his hands in his pockets. He asked the defendant to remove his hands several times. The defendant asked why that was necessary. The officer eventually decided to conduct a stop-and-frisk, during which he discovered a “smoking pipe.”

The officer then arrested the defendant for possession of drug paraphernalia. An additional search of the defendant revealed a substance later determined to be cocaine. A jury subsequently convicted the defendant of possession; he was sentenced to 30 months probation.

The Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court upheld the conviction. It held the officer’s stop-and-frisk search was perfectly legal. The court said the initial encounter between the officer and the defendant was “consensual,” i.e. the defendant was supposedly free to walk away. The defendant also “willingly” continued his conversation with the officer even after he was asked to remove his hands from his pockets.

Even though the court labeled this encounter “consensual,” it went on to say that an officer is still entitled to conduct a stop-and-frisk if he develops a “reasonable suspicion the citizen is armed and dangerous.” The officer testified he had such a suspicion here, and the court believed him. The fact he failed to uncover any weapon was irrelevant.

Have You Been Subject to a Stop-and-Frisk Search?

Contrary to the Fourth District’s position, many people assume that when an officer stops and talks to them, they are not free to simply walk away. This is why the best thing you can do if a police officer starts asking you questions is to assert your right to remain silent and contact an experienced Orland park criminal defense attorney. Call the Fotopoulos Law Office today if you are facing a drug crimes charge and need immediate assistance.

Sources:

2015 Stop and Frisk Report

Unfortunately, medical malpractice is a common occurrence in the United States. According to Johns Hopkins Medicine, medical negligence is the primary cause of death for more than 250,000 people each year. This puts medical negligence at the third leading cause of death in the United States, behind heart disease and cancer. Sadly, medical errors and negligence are usually preventable, meaning most of those deaths were unnecessary and at the fault of the doctor. One thing people can do after they or their family members experience an injury from a medical error is file a medical malpractice case. However, these cases can be complicated, so before you pursue a medical malpractice claim, here are four things you should know:

1. The Burden of Proof Lies Completely With You

In medical malpractice cases, the victim has the burden of proof. The physician does not have to prove that he was innocent; you and your lawyer have the responsibility to prove that the physician’s mistake was the reason that you suffered an injury. You must also demonstrate the actual losses you suffered because of the doctor’s error, such as additional medical treatment, disability, and pain and suffering.

2. There are Three Elements You Must Prove

There are three main elements that make up a medical malpractice case. All three of these must be present, because the absence of any one of them will mean you do not have a case. You must prove that:

1. The doctor did not meet an accepted standard of care or deviated from that standard.
2. You suffered an injury because of the doctor’s failure to meet the standard of care.
3. Your injury caused you to suffer significant damages.

3. Most Medical Malpractice Cases are Settled Outside of the Courtroom

Though you may think that medical malpractice cases must be heard before a judge or jury, the truth is, the majority of malpractice cases do not even make it to the courtroom. Most cases are settled rather than litigated, because it is much cheaper for the doctor and their insurance company to pay a settlement than to incur the legal costs involved in litigating a case.

4. You Need the Help of a Cook County Medical Malpractice Lawyer

Trying to file a medical malpractice case on your own will most likely result in your case being thrown out. There are many things you must prove when it comes to medical malpractice cases, especially if you want to get a decent settlement. At the Fotopoulos Law Office, we can help you put together a strong malpractice case, demonstrating that your injury occurred because of a doctor’s negligence and helping you recover compensation that fully addresses your damages. Our skilled Orland Park medical malpractice attorney will fight to get you the best settlement possible. Contact our office today by calling 708-942-8400 to schedule a free consultation.

Sources:

Study Suggests Medical Errors Now Third Leading Cause of Death in the U.S.

What is Medical Malpractice?

DocCheck News

A Chicago couple may continue their lawsuit against Uber after an appeals court in Illinois reversed the ruling of a Cook County judge. The couple was injured in 2014 in a chain of events that began when they were kicked out of an Uber vehicle near 44th Street and Homan Avenue in the Brighton Park neighborhood. The lawsuit seeks damages for the injuries the couple suffered as the result of being hit by a car while walking home from where the Uber driver left them.

A Quick Recap

In October 2014, the couple used the Uber app to request a ride home from the movies. They were picked up at the theater at around 2:00 a.m., but according to court documents, the Uber driver did not drive the proper route to the couple’s home. He allegedly made several wrong turns and ended up lost. When the couple tried to help by giving the driver directions, he reportedly got upset and kicked them out of the car prior to reaching their intended destination.

The couple started walking toward their home. While they were crossing at an intersection along the way, they were hit by a car, and they both suffered injuries. The driver fled the scene but was arrested the following day.

Within a couple weeks, the couple filed a lawsuit against the driver who hit them. Several months later, they amended their suit to add Uber and the Uber driver who kicked them out as defendants. They alleged that the driver wrongfully ejected them from their ride and did so in an unsafe area. The lawsuit also claimed that Uber was liable for keeping the driver active despite “a history of confrontations, wrongful discharges, and arguments with other [Uber] customers.”

Dismissal and Appeal

In May 2017, Cook County Judge Kathy Flanagan dismissed the suit against Uber and the Uber driver. While the lawsuit was allowed to continue against the driver who hit the couple, Judge Flanagan ruled that the Uber driver could not have foreseen the couple being hit by another driver. The other driver’s actions, the court ruled, “were an intervening, superseding cause of the Plaintiffs’ injuries that broke any causal chain” related to the Uber driver or Uber itself.

The injured couple appealed on the basis that they would not have been injured if their initial Uber ride had been completed as planned. A three-judge panel of the First District Appellate Court in Chicago determined that the lawsuit against Uber and the driver should be allowed to continue. The appeals court clarified that it was too early to say for sure that Uber or the Uber driver definitively did cause the accident but that it was also too early to reach a conclusion either way.

Contact an Orland Park Injury Lawyer

Proximate cause is an important element in any personal injury case. If you have been hurt in an accident and have questions about proximate cause, contact an experienced Tinley Park personal injury attorney. Call 708-942-8400 for a free consultation with Fotopoulos Law Office today.

Sources:

Appeals Panel: Couple Hit by Car Can Sue Uber, Driver for Dropping Them off at Busy Intersection at 2 a.m.

2018 IL App (1st) 171411

This past January, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) completed a formal investigation into the Chicago Police Department (CPD), specifically the misuse and overuse of force in ways that violate the civil rights of Illinois residents. The DOJ found there was “reasonable cause to believe” that CPD officers routinely took part in acts that “unnecessarily endanger themselves and result in unnecessary and avoidable uses of force.” This was not the result of a few bad officers, the DOJ said, but rather a system-wide “failure to train officers in de-escalation and the failure to conduct meaningful investigations of uses of force.”

IL Judges Reverse Battery Conviction of Man Tased Repeatedly by Police

There are many cases where police not only use excessive force, they turn around and charge the victim with a crime, such as assault and battery. Sadly, many of these victims-turned-defendants suffer from mental illness. The DOJ report noted that many law enforcement officers are not properly trained to deal with “complex situations” involving people with mental health problems and, as a result, the situation quickly escalates.

This appears to have been the case for one Chicago-area man who was charged, tried, and convicted of battery. In December 2010, the defendant called 911 and requested an ambulance. Two paramedics responded. When they arrived, they found the defendant was “a little bit nervous and kind of upset,” and he refused to believe the paramedics were who they said they were. One paramedic later testified in court that the defendant “was not rational” and “might be suffering from some type of psychological issue.”

Several police officers then came to the scene. The paramedics informed the officers that the defendant “was mentally unstable” or possibly under the influence of an “unknown controlled substance.” One officer tried to convince the defendant to let the paramedics take him to the hospital. When the officer reached for the defendant’s shoulder, the defendant fell to the floor and “began to punch and kick.” The officers then moved to arrest him.

When the defendant continued to resist, the officers tased him “about 10 times” with 50,000 volts of electricity. After the police finally subdued the defendant, he was charged with battery – one of his kicks made contact with a police officer – and resisting arrest.

Although a jury found the defendant guilty, the Illinois First District Appellate Court said there were “several errors that occurred during trial” that warranted reversing the conviction and barring a retrial. The key problem, according to the Appellate Court, was that there was “an abundance of evidence” suggesting the defendant lacked the requisite mental capacity – “mens rea” in legal terms – to commit battery. To the contrary, the defense presented evidence that the defendant was actually having a seizure when the police tased him.

Have You Been Accused of Assault or Battery?

In the end, the Appellate Court said “this prosecution was a waste of time and money.” The court suggested that all law enforcement officials “should receive training to enable them to distinguish between those responsible for their actions and those, like [the defendant], whose vulnerable and abnormal mental state causes them to act in uncooperative or confused ways.”

No one should ever have to call for medical attention and end up facing criminal charges. If you or a loved one has been charged with assault and battery and require assistance from an experienced Orland Park criminal defense attorney, call the Fotopoulos Law Office, today.

Gun ownership is not an absolute right in Illinois. A resident must obtain a Firearms Ownership Identification card (FOID) from the Illinois State Police in order to legally possess any firearms or ammunition. Anyone who owns or carries a gun without a FOID may face felony weapons charges.

Illinois’ Armed Habitual Criminal Law

Certain classes of people are ineligible to receive a FOID. Notably, this includes individuals who have been previously convicted of a felony in Illinois or any other jurisdiction. In fact, if someone previously convicted of multiple felonies is found in possession of a firearm, he or she may face serious sanctions under Illinois law.

The crime of “armed habitual criminal” refers to the receipt, sale, possession, or transfer by anyone with two prior convictions for any of the following:

• A “forcible felony,” including but not limited to treason, murder, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, aggravated arson, and kidnapping;
• The unlawful use of a weapon by a felon;
• Carjacking;
• Aggravated battery of a child;
• Gunrunning;
• Home invasion;
• Aggravated battery with a firearm; or
• Any violation of Illinois drug laws that is considered at least a Class 3 felony.

An armed habitual criminal charge does not require any proof that the defendant actually used a firearm. Mere possession of the weapon is sufficient. Additionally, the consequences are severe: armed habitual criminal is a Class X felony, the most serious type of felony in Illinois. A prison sentence is mandatory and may last from 6 to 30 years.

Appeals Court Upholds 8-Year Sentence

In any armed habitual criminal case, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has at least two prior qualifying convictions. For example, the Illinois First District Appellate Court recently affirmed the 8-year prison sentence of a defendant convicted of armed habitual criminal. The defendant in this case had two prior convictions for robbery and attempted armed robbery.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the state failed to prove how his attempted armed robbery conviction qualified as a “forcible felony” under the armed habitual criminal law. After all, the defense maintained, not all robberies involve force, and the prosecution allegedly failed to present any details about the circumstances of the conviction.

The appellate court was not impressed by this argument. It held that attempted armed robbery, by definition, required “the specific intent to knowingly take property from another by threat or use of force while armed with a firearm.” This was sufficient to constitute a “forcible felony.”

Are You Facing Weapons Charges in Illinois?

If you are arrested and charged with armed habitual criminal or any other weapons offense, you need to speak with an Orland Park criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Contact the Fotopoulos Law Office, today at 708-942-8400 to schedule a free consultation to discuss your case with us.

Sources:

Illinois Compiled Statutes

The People Of The State Of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee