Attorney Explains Medical Marijuana Laws in Illinois

This post was written by Miriam Szatrowski, a criminal defense attorney at Appelman & Associates.  Miriam has a wealth of experience in the criminal and civil courts, and she specializes in DUI, drug, and traffic offenses.  She has also served as an Assistant Public Defender in Kane County.  For more information about Miriam, check out her bio or give her a call at (630) 717-7801.

Last April, I wrote an article explaining the marijuana laws in Illinois. However, last week, Illinois became the 20^th state to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. On Thursday, August 1, Governor Pat Quinn signed the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act into law. The law will go into effect on January 1, 2014, but many people still have questions about what the law really does and how it will work. I will try to answer some of those questions here.

Who will be able to get a prescription to use medical marijuana in Illinois?

A person who wants to get a prescription in Illinois must be at least 18 years old and a resident of Illinois, and must show proof of age and residency. (Note: There is no reciprocity with other states where medical use of marijuana is legal.) In addition, they must pass a criminal background check. They must also present certification from their doctor stating that they are likely to benefit medically from the use of marijuana. Finally, they will need medical records showing that they have been diagnosed with a qualifying medical condition.

What are diseases and conditions that qualify under the new law?

There are a number of conditions that will qualify a person in Illinois to use marijuana medically. If a person does not have one of the qualifying conditions, they cannot use marijuana legally in Illinois, even if it is recommended by their doctor. The qualifying conditions include: Cancer, HIV, Multiple Sclerosis, Hepatitis C, ALS (also known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease), Glaucoma, Muscular Distrophy, Crohn’s disease, spinal cord injuries and traumatic brain injuries. (This is not an exhaustive list.) Terminally ill people with certain symptoms can also qualify.

If you think that you might be a candidate, it is best to speak with a doctor and an attorney to make sure.

When will medical marijuana become available, and where can people buy it?

The State of Illinois will be issuing 60 licenses statewide for marijuana dispensaries where qualified patients can purchase medical marijuana. They will be able to purchase up to 2.5 ounces every 2 weeks. Patients will not be permitted to grow their own cannabis plants. Instead, the state will license 22 places to grow cannabis, one in each district of the Illinois State Police Department.

It is not clear when it will become available. The law does not take effect until January 1, 2014, but even then, dispensaries might not begin distribution (or even be open) right away.

In addition, most insurance probably will not cover it, so it will have to be paid for out-of-pocket.

Can I be arrested or fired for having or using medical marijuana?

Possession of marijuana is still illegal under federal law. While it is unlikely that patients will be prosecuted under federal law for possessing small amounts of cannabis for personal use, it is certainly possible under the law. The federal government could also choose to prosecute people running the dispensaries and growing facilities.

The new law will protect qualifying patients and their caregivers from arrest and prosecution under Illinois law, provided they are abiding by the terms of the law, but it does not protect them from being fired if their employer has drug-free workplace rules.

Why is it called a “Pilot Program”?

The law is a pilot program because it is set to expire after 4 years. If it is successful, the legislature can renew the law at that time, or make changes and pass a new law with those changes. If they do nothing, the law will expire and cannabis possession will become illegal in all circumstances again.

Illinois Woman Charged With DUI While Celebrating the Reinstatement of her License from Previous DUI Conviction

58-year old Erin James had a little too much fun on Friday when she was out celebrating the reinstatement of her driver’s license, which had been revoked because of a previous drunk driving conviction.  James had a few too many alcoholic beverages, and then decided to get behind the wheel and drive home.

Unfortunately for James, she pressed the pedal to the metal during her drive, and authorities stopped her for speeding.  James consented to a breathalyzer where she blew a .155, nearly twice the legal limit in Illinois.  She was ultimately booked on DUI charges.

In addition to the DUI charge, James was cited for failing to equip her vehicle with a breath alcohol Ignition Interlock Device.  James was required by law to install an IID under the conditions of her initial DUI conviction.

“The fact that she was driving a vehicle not equipped with a BAIID shows that she had every intent of drinking and getting behind the wheel,” Riverside Police Chief Tom Weitzel said in statement.

James originally had her license suspended in 2012 after an arrest for drunk driving in North Riverside.  When she was pulled over Friday, she told the officer on the scene she was out celebrating the imminent return of her license.

Odds are James will need to wait a lot longer until her license is reinstated this time around.

Defense Attorney Miriam Szatrowzski comments

Sadly, many people who get DUIs have serious alcohol problems, and the mandatory treatment for the first DUI is not enough to overcome them. Others just don’t make very good decisions.

Either way, since this is her second DUI, she will face more serious penalties, both in the criminal court and with her driver’s license. In the criminal case, she will not be eligible for supervision, so if found guilty she will get a conviction on her record. If this happens, she will probably get probation, but many judges will also give people jail time for second offenses. She is also facing a mandatory minimum of five days in jail or 240 hours of community service because it is a second DUI. She is lucky that she only blew a .155 and not a .16, because blowing twice the limit adds in extra penalties. In this case, it would add a mandatory two days in jail and $1,250 in fines. As for her driver’s license, if she is convicted, her license will be revoked for a minimum of one year, and she will have to get treatment and have a hearing in order to get her driving privileges restored.

Hopefully, she will never do this a third time, or she will be charged with a felony and may end up with a prison sentence.

Related source: Chicago Tribune

Man Sentenced in Bizarre Attempt to Kidnap, Extort Illinois Attorney

In a story that sounds like the plot of a bad cable movie, an Illinois man was sentenced to 20 years in prison for allegedly plotting to kidnap a lawyer and hold him for ransom money.

Brett Nash, 46, received his sentence Thursday after pleading guilty to a charge of solicitation of a crime of violence late last year.

Thankfully the plot didn’t involve any of the attorneys at Appelman and Associates, but the report says Nash targeted a lawyer from Granite City, Illinois.

What puts the story over the top is the amount of information that was gathered about Nash’s kidnapping plan.  Much of the evidence used against Nash was provided by a tape recorder that was planted on a co-worker who Nash enlisted to help carry out his plan.  Some of Nash’s ridiculous plans are detailed below.

• Nash planned to kidnap the lawyer and force him to write checks for “labor”, which Nash could then collect.
• If the attorney wouldn’t comply, Nash planned to force the attorney to wear a fake explosive suit and walk into his bank.  The attorney would then need to withdraw all his funds or risk being blown up.  Nash said he got the idea by watching a show on the Discovery Channel.
• Nash planned to wear makeup or a mask, saying “This is Mission Impossible (expletive)”.
• Nash eventually planned to kill the lawyer by staging an accident involving a hot-tub, a cat, and a radio.
• During one of the recordings, Nash told his colleague that he was willing to buy a cat, a litter box, and pet food to further his staged suicide plan.
• Nash told the would-be accomplice they could avoid leaving behind DNA evidence by using copious amounts of hair gel to keep their hair from shedding.

Nash’s accomplice wanted no part of the operation, and he agreed to wear a recording device for the FBI.

“I’ve been playing with this for a year. Fine tunin’ this (expletive),” Nash said on the recording.

During trial, Nash’s attorney argued that the plot was too outrageous to be real.  Unfortunately for Mr. Nash, the jury didn’t see it that way.

Attorney Brett Appelman comments

Many people think that with a few simple tricks, they can steal a lot of money without being caught.  Shows like CSI and Law & Order depict mastermind criminals who use science and technology to thwart law enforcement, but some people need to be reminded that those are fictional TV shows.

This guy thought that with a few tricks he picked up from Mission Impossible and The Discovery Channel he would be able to pull off a sophisticated kidnapping, extortion, armed robbery, and possibly murder scheme.  Unfortunately for him he was brought down by the simplest and cheapest technology available these days: a recording device.  Most of the techniques depicted on these shows are not as useful in the real world as they appear to be on TV.  Hair gel will not prevent the hair on your arms or eyelashes from falling out at the crime scene, a way in which many criminals have eventually been caught.  Masks are never as effective as they seem to be on TV, and I cannot even speculate on the attempt to commit murder with a cat.

He got caught and he will be doing serious time behind bars.  Hopefully he will spend the next few years in the prison library, not in front of the TV.

Related source:  St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Moving out of State with a Child – 5 FAQs

This post was written by Sean Sullivan, head of the Family Law department at Appelman & Associates.  Sean is committed to providing his clients with the best representation in a variety of civil matters. He has also served as volunteer law clerk with the Cook County Public Defender’s prestigious Homicide Task Force.  For more information about Sean, check out his bio or give him a call at (630) 717-7801.

In my daily practice, one recurrent theme I deal with is parents who have moved out of state with their child, or are contemplating moving out of state with their child, and suddenly find themselves in a legal battle with their ex who opposes the move. It becomes particularly frustrating for clients when it seems the party objecting to the move is doing so “to get back at me and not because they really care about our child”. That very well may be, but my answer is always the same; in order to move, you have to get permission from the Court.

If the child was born in Illinois, or has resided in Illinois for the last six months, then Illinois has jurisdiction over the child. If Illinois has legal jurisdiction over the child, then the child cannot be removed from the state (on a permanent basis) without the permission of the Court. Your ex may be taking you to Court just to fight you and not out of concern over your child, but it is their legal right to do so.

What do I need to do if I want to move out of state and take my child with me?

You need to contact an attorney and seek their help in filing a motion with the Court asking for permission to remove the child from the state.

What if I am just taking the child out of state temporarily, do I need the permission of the Court?

Maybe.  It depends upon the language that was agreed upon in the joint parenting agreement or the marital settlement agreement. Both agreements typically have some language that allows for removal of the children for short periods of time, but it is best to consult an attorney and have them review either your JPA or MSA to determine this for sure.

I already moved out of state, and did not get the Court’s permission. Is anything going to happen to me?

It is very likely you could be held in contempt by the Court for taking the child out of state without permission. You should attempt to return the child to the state as soon as possible and contact an attorney.

What factors does the Court consider in letting me move my child out of state?

There are many factors the Court takes into consideration and each can be given different weight by the Court. Overall, the controlling factor in the Court’s determination is what is in the best interest of the child.

I am getting remarried, how will the Court look at that?

The Court will consider that as one of the factors it makes in its determination of what is in the best interest of your child. Getting remarried or not getting remarried is not necessarily a predictor of what the Court will decide one way or the other.

Illinois Carjacking Trial Begins Without Defendant – Trial in Absentia

A criminal case surrounding the carjacking of a young mother began Tuesday in Cook County, despite the fact that the defendant was nowhere to be found.

Michael Buhrman, 31, was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday on charges stemming from an incident in which he allegedly carjacked a vehicle in a parking garage at gunpoint.

According to the plaintiff, she was spending her work break in her car when an old man approached her to see if she needed any help.  The woman got out of the car to speak to the man, and he pulled out a handgun.

The man sped off in her vehicle, but he was stopped by police a few minutes later.  When they approached the car, they noticed that Buhrman had a handgun and a latex mask on the passenger’s seat.

It’s uncertain if Buhrman stole the idea from Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible III, but prosecutors weren’t given the opportunity to ask about the mask because Buhrman failed to show up for court.

His absence was hardly unexpected though, as he hasn’t been seen since last September.  On the last day he was seen, authorities got a signal from Buhrman’s court ordered GPS anklet that someone was attempting to tamper with the device.  When authorities arrived on the scene, the only thing they found was a detached GPS bracelet.

Buhrman is being tried in absentia, meaning the court views his decision not to show up as an indication that he is waiving his right to appear.  The trial is expected to conclude within the week.

Attorney Brett Appelman comments

This sounds like something straight out of Law and Order.

When a defendant is initially being addressed by the judge, they are told “if you fail to appear we can go ahead and hold your trial without you.”  We hear this all the time, but what does it actually mean?

A criminal defendant who skips town and fails to appear at their trial can literally be tried, found guilty, and sentenced without even being in court.  It is called a “Trial in Absentia”, and they happen with some regularity.  If you fail to show up for your trial, you are assumed to have waived your right to appear, meaning that the judge will believe that you willingly decided to not show up and defend yourself.  The trial will commence without you.

In this case, the alleged car-jacker has fled and has not appeared for his trial.  His lawyers will put on his defense and try to win the trial, but having an absent defendant makes their job much harder.  A jury is not likely to look favorably upon a defendant that has run away from his own trial.

If he is found guilty, the judge will hand down a sentence, and if this defendant is ever caught he will serve that sentence, be it probation, fines, or more likely in this case, prison time.

Related source:  Chicago Tribune

Illinois Marijuana Laws

This post was written by Miriam Szatrowski, a criminal defense attorney at Appelman & Associates.  Miriam has a wealth of experience in the criminal and civil courts, and she specializes in DUI, drug, and traffic offenses.  She has also served as an Assistant Public Defender in Kane County.  For more information about Miriam, check out her bio or give her a call at (630) 717-7801.

Recently, marijuana legalization has been a hot topic news articles, political debates, and casual conversations. This is largely due to rapidly changing attitudes toward marijuana in the United States. According to an April 4, 2013 article in the Chicago Tribune, the majority of American adults (52%) now support legalization of marijuana.

Though marijuana possession remains illegal under federal law, a number of states have legalized medical marijuana possession, and a few have even legalized it for recreational use. Despite these changes in public opinion, Illinois still criminalizes marijuana possession. I regularly defend people charged with violations of these laws, and in that process I have come across a number of questions from clients, as well as misconceptions about the law in Illinois. The following Marijuana FAQ can give you the information you need to avoid becoming my next client.

Is it ever legal to possess marijuana in Illinois? What about medical marijuana?

It is still a crime to possess marijuana in Illinois. There is no medical exception. There is no “personal use” exception. Possession of any amount of cannabis is illegal under Illinois law.

Aren’t there some cities and towns where you can only get a ticket?

Some towns and cities have local laws that allow police to write tickets instead of making arrests when people are caught in possession of small amounts of cannabis. Unfortunately, these local laws are often misunderstood. First of all, they are all different. An amount that is eligible for a ticket in one place may not be in another. The maximum amounts vary from 2.5g to 30g. In addition, there are many circumstances that can affect your violation, including:

• Your age
• The location you were caught (airport, school, park)
• Prior convictions

Finally, almost all, if not all, leave the decision of whether to arrest or ticket to the individual officer’s discretion. That means that even if you are eligible for a ticket only, the officer can decide to arrest you and have you charged under state law.

Can I be arrested just for being “high” or having marijuana/THC in my system?

Having marijuana or THC in your system is not a crime in and of itself. However, there are local ordinances in some places regarding being “intoxicated” in public, or in the roadway. Also, if you drive with THC in your system, whether or not you are actually impaired, you are committing a DUI.

What are the penalties for violating Illinois marijuana laws?

Illinois laws focus on two things: how much you have, and simple possession v. manufacture/delivery. Generally the more you have, the more serious the crime, and if you are manufacturing it, delivering it, or possessing it with the intent to deliver it, it is treated as a more serious crime than if you simply possess it. Also, the crime is not just possession of cannabis, but possession of a substance containing cannabis. This means that if you use a misdemeanor amount of cannabis to make a pan of pot brownies, you are now in possession of a much heavier substance containing cannabis, and could be charged with a felony!

The penalties are all laid out in two sections of the Cannabis Control Act: 720 ILCS 550/4 and 720 ILCS 550/5. The table below contains a summary of the laws and maximum penalties. However, most people do not get the maximum penalty. People charged with misdemeanor possession rarely go to jail, and even those with lower level felonies often get probation if they have no criminal history. However, even sentences that don’t involve serving time can include steep fines, classes or drug treatment, random drug tests, and community service. Also, repeat offenders often get harsher penalties than first-time offenders.

Possession of x grams	Manufacture/ Delivery	Class	Maximum Penalty (Note: IL laws may have changed since this was written, and certain factors that were not included in this table may enhance the charge to a higher level crime.)
x ≤ 2.5		C (Misdemeanor)	30 days jail and $1500 fine
2.5 < x ≤ 10	x ≤ 2.5	B (Misdemeanor)	6 months jail and $1500 fine
10 < x ≤ 30	2.5 < x ≤ 10	A (Misdemeanor)	364 days jail and $2500 fine
30 < x ≤ 500	10 < x ≤ 30	4 (Felony)	1-3 years prison and $25,000 fine
500< x ≤ 2000	30 < x ≤ 500	3 (Felony)	2-5 years prison and $25,000 fine
2000 < x ≤ 5000	500< x ≤ 2000	2 (Felony)	3-7 years prison and $25,000 fine
5000 < x	2000 < x ≤ 5000	1 (Felony)	4-15 years prison and $25,000 fine
	5000 < x	X (Felony)	6-30 years prison and $25,000 fine

How can I protect myself?

There are a number of things that you can do to avoid being charged with a violation of these laws. Here are some tips:

1.  Don’t possess cannabis. This means don’t have it in your car, your home, or your pocket. Please, please, please don’t have it anywhere at school!!! Don’t agree to hold it for a friend. (Remember, possession is the crime, not ownership. “It isn’t mine,” is not a defense.) Unfortunately, this may not be enough to protect you, so read on.

2.  Do not use cannabis in your car, or let anyone else use it in your car. Smoking marijuana leaves a strong, distinct odor that gets into the fabric in your car and doesn’t go away for a week or more. Every police officer knows the smell, and smelling it gives them probable cause to search your car.

3.  Do not ride in anyone else’s car if it smells like someone has been smoking marijuana in it. If they get pulled over and the car is searched, and the police find something near where you are sitting, you could be blamed for it.

4.  Never, EVER consent to a search of your body, your clothes, your bag, your car, or your home! This is important even if you are sure the police won’t find anything illegal. You never know if someone else has left something in your car that shouldn’t be there. (“I didn’t know it was there!” only works if the jury believes you.) Think it can’t happen to you? I have represented many clients who thought it couldn’t happen to them, either.

You don’t have to be rude, and you should never physically resist. Just say, calmly and politely, “I do not consent to a search.” Repeat if necessary. If they search anyway, your lawyer can fight it in court.

5.  Do not answer police questions. Give your name and identification if asked for it. Other than that, if the police stop you and try to talk to you, ask them, “Am I free to leave?” If they say, “yes,” walk away. If they say, “no,” tell them you will not answer any questions without a lawyer present. Do not lie, or give a false name or identification card, or you could find yourself charged with more crimes.

Talking to police never makes things better, and often makes it worse, even if you are completely innocent. I can’t tell you how many times I have had a case that we could have easily won if my client had just followed this advice. Even worse, I have had several clients talk themselves into more serious charges.

6.  Finally, if you or someone you know is charged with any crime, talk to an experienced criminal defense attorney right away to make sure that you get the best possible outcome for your case.

Am I a candidate for an uncontested divorce?

Almost by its very essence, obtaining a divorce is a contested issue, thus very few people qualify for Simplified Divorce Proceedings.  I often get calls from people who want a “quick divorce” or they “had a friend who got a divorce just by filling out some paperwork”. In effect what these people are really asking is: am I a candidate for an uncontested divorce?  Yes; in Illinois if you qualify for a simplified dissolution, it can be much quicker than obtaining a traditional divorce. And yes, it is relatively easy and requires mostly just filling out some forms and filing them with the court.   That being said, most of the people who contact me are not eligible for a simplified dissolution.

If any of the following apply to you or your spouse, then you are NOT eligible for a simplified dissolution proceeding and should consult a lawyer to determine the best course of action in your impending divorce:

• You and your spouse have been married longer than 8 years;
• During the course of the marriage either you or your spouse: adopted a child;  gave birth to any child; or you or your spouse is currently pregnant;
• The parties’ income is greater than $35,000.

This list in not all inclusive but just highlights the most common factors that make most couples ineligible for simplified dissolution proceedings. If you answered no to any of these, a simplified dissolution may still not be the best solution for you. It is often better to contact an experienced family law practitioner to discuss your questions or concerns and let them determine the best way to proceed.

Sean Sullivan is a Civil and Family Law Associate at Appelman and Associates.  If you would like to talk to Sean about a Family Law matter, he can be reached at (630) 717-7801.

Dog Uncovers $500,000 Worth of Opium at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport

Leave it to a dog named Shadow to bring illegal narcotics to light.

Shadow, a drug sniffing dog with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection alerted officials to packages of opium-soaked cloth that revealed about 30 pounds of the illegal substance.  The opium had a street value of nearly $500,000.

The packages were stopped at the International Mail Facility near O’Hare International Airport last month.

Shadow identified the first package around 2:30pm on March 15.  The package was labeled as “Hmong dresses”, and it was destined for Wisconsin.  After Shadow alerted his handlers, Customs seized the package.  Inside the box were 15 pounds of clothes, which tested positive for opium.

Shadow identified another package later in the day, this one en route to Minnesota from Laos.  The five pound package contained 10 pieces of opium-soaked cloth.

Shadow wasn’t done though, as he sniffed out two more drug packages within a half hour.

The third package, again destined for Wisconsin, was listed as “traditional medicines” on the shipping invoice. It contained 38 bags of wood chips, which tested positive for opium.  The last package was stopped on its way to Minnesota.  It was also listed as “traditional medicines”, but upon inspection it revealed 53 bags of twigs and wood shavings, which again tested positive for opium.

The last two packages weighed a combined 11 pounds, bringing the 8-year-old Belgian Malinois’ daily count to 30 pounds of opium.

Brett Appelman comments

This type of case is not too unusual these days.  With the advent of x-ray machines and other scanning technologies, combined with the use of drug dogs, sending illegal drugs through the mail has become very difficult.  Drug dealers have resorted to swallowing balloons filled with drugs, filling boxes with coffee grounds, and even using dryer sheets to sneak the drugs into the country.  Some still get through, but more and more of these packages get caught.

The next question is whether or not an arrest can be made in this case. Clearly the police will be interested in who was supposed to receive these packages, but merely being the intended receiver of a package of drugs is not necessarily illegal.  The addressee can certainly claim that they had no knowledge of the drugs, which would make the case more difficult for the State.  The state may have a tough time proving that the addressee knew about the contents, agreed to receive the contents, and attempted to import drugs.

This will likely be a very tough case for the prosecutor to win.

Related source:  Chicago Tribune

NIU Frat Members Named in Wrongful Death Suit

The family of a Northern Illinois University freshman who died after drinking excessive amounts of alcohol is suing the fraternity who hosted the pledge party for wrongful death.

In the lawsuit, the family of David Bogenberger alleges that members of the Pi Kappa Alpha house encouraged their son to drink large amounts of alcohol and failed to provide assistance when Bogenberger became unconscious.

An autopsy revealed that Bogenberger, 19, had a blood alcohol level of .4, nearly five times the legal driving limit for adults.  In the suit, the Bogenberger’s stated that the fraternity did not follow national hazing policies, and their actions caused their son to consume “excessive and dangerous amounts of alcohol”.

Peter Coladarci, the family’s attorney, argued that the nationally recognized fraternity did not adequately ensure that their chapters knew about the dangers of overconsumption.

“The national organization has a responsibility to provide meaningful training, supervision and oversight to its local chapters, so that fraternity members understand that alcohol-related hazing is … potentially deadly,” said Coladarci.

Underage consumption is common on college campuses, but fatalities are not.  One study suggests that roughly 12 underage students die each year due overconsumption.

All 22 members of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity were named in the lawsuit.  Each individual faces criminal charges, while five leaders have been charged with felony hazing.

Attorney Sean Sullivan comments

Regrettably, hazing incidents seem to be ever increasing in the news these days.

Whether it is extreme binge drinking at a college fraternity party, or physical assaults among high-school athletic teams, young people are being hurt. Illinois in particular has seen several incidents at the high school level in the last year or so.

The best way to protect these young people and end hazing is to stand up to these bullies and draw attention to the problem. Filing lawsuits will help bring attention to these incidents and put these bullies on notice that these particularly callous or negligent acts will not be tolerated anymore.

Related source:  Chicago Tribune

Police Lying under Oath Not Uncommon

The difference between truth and reality sometimes offers a harsh look behind the veil of public perception.  This is seen in all aspects of life, from wanting to believe Lance Armstrong never took performance enhancing drugs to believing your child when they say they didn’t take the last cookie.

Public perception plays a critical role in how much we believe a person when they say something is or isn’t true.  We’d like to think everyone is power is always telling the truth, but that is not always the case.

People lie for a variety of reasons, and sometimes they lie for no reason at all.  One of the biggest problems in society is when a lie is protected or “corroborated” by a group of individuals who have a vested interest in the particular matter at hand.  Whether it’s a financial or moral obligation, groups of individuals sometimes perpetuate lies for the greater good of their cause.  As we’ve seen in recent years, police officers are one of the groups that sometimes use their position to pass false statements to get a result they want.

Peter Keane, former San Francisco Police commissioner, said lying in the courtroom is becoming commonplace among police officers.

“Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law,” said Keane.  “Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.”

Why they lie

Police officers lie for a variety of reasons, but the main reason may be because they know they can get away with it.  According to Keane, law enforcement officials “know that in a swearing match between a drug defendant and a police officer, the judge always rules in favor of the officer.”

Keane also said a majority of the alleged criminals are on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, meaning that they are oftentimes poor and uneducated.

“Police know that no one cares about these people,” said Mr. Keane.

While those two reasons may be true, a more disturbing trend may be emerging.  Police departments across the nation receive financial compensation based on the number of arrests they report each year.  With federal grants at stake, some officers may be willing to bend or break rules in order to boost their bottom line.  There have been a handful of cases involving planted drugs or lying police offers, most notably in Texas and California, which have been linked to a desire to increase federal funding.

Adil Polanco, a New York City police officer, told ABC news in 2010 that law enforcement officials do not have the public’s best interests at heart.

“Our primary job is not to help anybody, our primary job is not to assist anybody, our primary job is to get those numbers and come back with them,” said Polanco.  “At the end of the night you have to come back with something.  You have to write somebody, you have to arrest somebody, even if the crime is not committed, the number’s there. So our choice is to come up with the number.”

New York City police commissioner Raymond Kelly refuted Polanco’s remarks, saying such arrest quotas are illegal under state law, but it calls into question which person had more to gain from their statement, Polanco or Kelly?  While it’s entirely possible Polanco had a grudge against the police department, would we really expect Kelly to do anything but deny Polanco’s statement?

While you can take a lot of things away from the story, consider that it’s entirely possible that an arresting officer may tell a slightly different tale than the one that led to your arrest.  In cases like this, it is always important to have a smart legal team that understands the best way to get you out of a situation.

Attorney Sean Sullivan comments

As a defense attorney, I have seen officers be untruthful on the stand firsthand.  Unfortunately, most people who have little experience with the criminal justice system believe that an officer will always tell “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

As a community, defense attorneys have been trying to get the truth out on this matter for years, but no one really believes it when it comes from a lawyer. Sadly, people believe that defense lawyers will say anything to get their client off. Well, police officers will often say anything to get someone convicted. Maybe people will start paying attention to this problem now that it is garnering support from the non-legal community.

Related source:  New York Times