Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on the Trooper Who Is Out to Get You

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about speeding.  Today’s Chicago Sun Times profiles the trooper you don’t want to meet.  He’s written over 5,000 tickets.

June 12, Chicago, IL:

Trooper Jason Heinzl squinted through the sight of his speed gun, fixed the red laser target on the license plate ‘PQQDLE’ and pulled the trigger.

For a split-second as it flashed past Heinzl’s hidden squad car in the passenger seat of a speeding Chevrolet Tahoe SUV, the unmistakable profile of a well-groomed poodle was silhouetted in black against the sun-bleached windshield.

“Seventy-eight miles an hour,” Heinzl said, stomping on the gas and turning on his lights. “That’ll do.”

The 5,005 speeding tickets the 36-year-old veteran of 12 years has written since January 2000 is 603 more than his closest colleague, a Sun-Times analysis of more than 700,000 tickets shows. Or as he puts it, “If I have to get out of my car, you’re usually getting a ticket.”

Seriously, is it worth the risk of getting stopped by this guy or one of his colleagues?

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Whether Vehicular Fleeing Should Be Categorized as a Violent Crime

Did you know that driving away from the police can now be considered a violent crime?  No you don’t have to hit anyone or anything for fleeing and eluding the police, in a car, to be deemed a violent crime?

On Thursday, a divided Court, ruled in a 6-3 decision that an Indiana man could be sentenced, federally under an enhancement based on having a background of three violent crimes.  Yes.  One of those “violent crimes” was fleeing the police in a vehicle.

June 9, Washington, D.C.:

 

Fleeing from the police in a car is a violent felony that can subject criminals to mandatory 15-year prison terms, the Supreme ruled on Thursday in a 6-to-3 decision.

The decision was the court’s fourth encounter since 2007 with a phrase in a federal law, the Armed Career Criminal Act. Under the law, convicted felons found with guns face a maximum sentence of 10 years. But those with three convictions for violent felonies are subject to a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence.

The law defines violent felonies as including burglary, arson and other “conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” The defendant in the case Thursday, Marcus Sykes, pleaded guilty to having a gun in violation of the federal law, and it was undisputed that he had twice committed violent felonies, by robbing a man of his wristwatch and a woman of her purse.

The question in the case was whether a third conviction under Indiana law for fleeing from the police in a car was also a violent felony. Mr. Sykes’s flight was dangerous, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. “Sykes wove through traffic, drove on the wrong side of the road and through yards containing bystanders, passed through a fence and struck the rear of a house,” Justice Kennedy wrote.

But, Justice Kennedy went on, the issue was not whether Mr. Sykes’s actual conduct had been violent. Rather, it was whether the crime he had been convicted of was as a general matter a crime of violence.

As a matter of both common experience and statistics, Justice Kennedy wrote, the answer was yes. Fleeing from the police in a car, he wrote, “is a provocative and dangerous act that dares, and in a typical case requires, the officer to give chase.”

Did you notice this was not a unanimous decision?  What I find interesting is that Justice Scalia wrote a separate dissent.

From Sykes v. U.S., No, No. 09-11311.:

 As the Court's opinion acknowledges, this case is “another in a series,” ante, at 1.  More specifically, it is an attempt to clarify, for the fourth time since 2007, what distinguishes “violent  felonies” under the residual clause of the Armed Career  Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2)(B)(ii), from other crimes.  See James v. United  States, 550 U. S. 192  (2007); Begay v. United States, 553

U. S. 137 (2008); Chambers v. United States, 555 U. S. 122 (2009).  We try to include an ACCA residual-clause case in about every second or  third volume of the United States  Reports.

 As was perhaps predictable, instead of producing a clarification of the Delphic residual clause, today’s opinion produces a fourth ad hoc judgment that will sow further confusion.  Insanity, it has been said, is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.  Four times is enough.   We should admit that ACCA’s residual provision  is a drafting failure and declare it void for vagueness.  See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 357 (1983).

 What does violate the Constitution is approving the enforcement of a sentencing statute that does not “give a person of ordinarily intelligence fair notice” of its reach, United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S.  114, 123 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted), and  that permits, indeed  invites, arbitrary enforcement, see Kolender,  461 U. S.,  at 357.   The Court’s ever-evolving interpretation of the residual clause will keep defendants and judges guessing for years to come.  The reality is that the phrase “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” does not clearly define the crimes that will subject defendants to the greatly increased ACCA

penalties.  It is not the job of this Court to impose a clarity which the text itself does not honestly contain.  And even if that were our job, the further reality is that we have by now demonstrated our inability to accomplish the task.

 We face a Congress that puts forth an ever-increasing volume of laws in general, and of criminal laws in particular.  It should be no surprise that as the volume increases,so do the number of imprecise laws.  And no surprise that our indulgence of imprecisions that violate the Constitution encourages imprecisions that violate the Constitution.  Fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the-courts legislation  is attractive to the Congressman who wants credit for addressing a national problem but does not have the time (or perhaps the votes) to grapple with the nittygritty.  In the field of  criminal law, at least, it is time to

call a halt.  I do not  think it would be a radical step—indeed, I think it would be highly responsible—to limit ACCA to the named violent crimes.  Congress can quickly add what it wishes.  Because the majority prefers to let vagueness reign, I respectfully dissent.

 

 A decision like this requires citizens to correct the decisions of the court.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on What You Shouldn't Do if You Are in a Roadblock

It’s a damp night.  Still it’s the weekend and you know what that means, another DUI roadblock in a neighborhood.  Keep in mind, this doesn’t mean that police aren’t working other areas in patrol cars, on bikes (I saw two bike officers about an hour ago), horses, and ATVs.

From chicagopolice.org:

 The Chicago Police Department will conduct a DUI Strike Force Patrol in the Ogden 010^th District. The DUI Strike Force Patrol will commence at 8:00 p.m. on Friday, June 10, 2011 and end at 4:00 a.m. on Saturday, June 11, 2011.

The purpose of this program is to saturate a pre-designated area with roving police officers that continually monitor vehicular traffic for signs of impaired driving. Patrols also place emphasis on speed, alcohol-related and safety belt violations. Police vehicles equipped for speed detection are deployed to apprehend speeding violators.

Whatever you do, if you are in the neighborhood, avoid this area by several blocks.  Trust me, don’t try to change your course once you see the cones alerting you to the roadblock.  Most of the time, if you change course you will find another roadblock awaiting you or suspicious police following you assuming you are driving drunk and that’s the reason your changed your course.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on The Break for Parking Scofflaws

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about how difficult it can be to get your driver’s license back.  Unfortunately, frequently it comes down to money.

Now, in a nod to these economic dire times, your Illinois legislators thought maybe we should make it a wee bit easier for folks to get their driving privileges restored.  Somehow, I don’t think the memo got out about this; the law is almost a year old.

625 ILCS 5/6-306.5:

(d) Any municipality making a certified report to the

Secretary of State pursuant to this Section shall notify the

Secretary of State, in a form prescribed by the Secretary,

whenever a person named in the certified report has paid the

previously reported fine or penalty, whenever a person named in

the certified report has entered into a payment plan pursuant

to which the municipality has agreed to terminate the

suspension, or whenever the municipality determines that the

original report was in error. A certified copy of such

notification shall also be given upon request and at no

additional charge to the person named therein. Upon receipt of

the municipality's notification or presentation of a certified

copy of such notification, the Secretary of State shall

terminate the suspension.

 

So if you let parking tickets trigger a suspension of your driving privileges, you could get your driving privileges restored by entering into a payment plan with the municipality that reported your lack of payments in the first place.  In the past, it was an all or nothing proposition with the municipality once your license was suspended. 

Don’t sleep on your rights!

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on an Offer for Dinner-- No It's Not a Client

“I tell you what, if he comes back with a valid license on the next court date, I’ll buy you a nice vegetarian dinner”.  Wow!  I thought to myself.  It’s not every day that even the government is jaded by the ability of the accused to right the ship.  Change Course.  Plot a new path.  Ask for the Mulligan, in other words begin again.

The accused has numerous charges for driving without a valid driver’s license simply because he never bothered to pay a reinstatement fee to the Secretary of State.  That’s right, failure to pay a reinstatement fee (that’s the only reason for the suspension) is enough to land you in the county jail for almost a year and or court fees of up to $2500.

Does that make any sense to you?

Dear Government Prosecutor,

Here’s a list of some of my favorite vegetarian friendly places for that dinner.

Great Lake

Lula

Nightwood

Green Zebra

Sun Wah

Mana

Prairie Fire

Old Town Social

Avec

Blackbird

My client has assured me that your offer of dinner for me is worth it to him.  He will comply.  He will start again with a valid driver's license.

Yours truly,

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on DUI and Graduation

This Chicago DUI attorney has commented here on the additional challenges of being under 21 and charged with a DUI.  I know that prom season has just ended and graduation and parties to celebrate are upon us.  It also can brings tragedy.

When I was growing up in South Carolina, every year seniors would die in some alcohol-related death.  Back then the drinking age was eighteen and most seniors were eighteen.  

Times have changed.  Now the legal drinking age is 21.  Times remain the same, seniors graduate from high school and celebrate with alcohol and other drugs. Tragedy occurs.

A couple of weeks ago a friend posted this story on her Facebook Wall and it brought tears to my eyes:

Still, you don’t want to ruin your life before your adulthood begins.  You don’t want me to have to defend you in a case where you are charged with a DUI.  The stakes are considerably higher when you are under 21.

Chicago DUI Attorney Comments on Subsequent DUI Charges and Court Behavior

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here  about people charged more than once with a DUI, still it never fails to surprise her when people charged with this offense come to court smelling of alcohol, never mind actually being drunk.

From chicagobreakingnews.com:

An Elgin woman charged with DUI six times had her bail revoked this week after police say she came to court intoxicated.

Authorities say 54-year-old Sandra Uher had been free on $100,000 when she was taken into custody.

 During her most recent DUI arrest in March, police say Uher failed a field sobriety test and had a preliminary blood-alcohol content of .30, nearly four times the legal limit for drivers.

She was also driving on a revoked license.

The good news is the judge realized her problem is more than a criminal one, she needs help, so she was taken to the medical facilities at the jail.