New App May Help Facilitate Tenant-Landlord Communications

Renters in Illinois may soon find it easier to communicate with their landlords with the help of their smartphone.

As it currently stands, many Illinois renters turn to the Metropolitan Tenants Organization when they have an issue with their apartment or their landlord. The MTO does it’s best to settle disputes and ensure landlords are providing adequate service to their tenants, but the organization, which is comprised of roughly two dozen employees and volunteers, fields approximately 10,000 calls and assists 15,000 renters each year. In order to help streamline the process, the organization has partnered with the MacArthur Foundation to develop an app to speed up communications.

The app is called Squared Away Chicago, and it has many helpful features for both renters and landlords, including:

• Sending time-stamped photos to landlords to better diagram issues.

• Offering a companion form to explain the problem, rate the severity of the issue, and schedule a time when the landlord can enter the apartment.

• Keeping track of past complaints so both renter and landlord have a digital trail of past and present maintenance requests.

• Easing the distribution of mass messages such as maintenance alerts or inspections by allowing landlords to reach multiple tenants at once.

John Bartlett, executive director of the Metropolitan Tenants Organization, said he believes the app has benefits for both renters and landlords.

“One of the goals with the app is to create a better relationship between landlords and tenants, or at least make that a possibility,” said Bartlett. “This makes communication easy and easily documented. When you’re on the phone, it’s so easy to forget. There are a lot of ‘he said, she said.’ [This] is a little more formal.”

The Prevalence of Phones

A greater amount of low-income renters are gaining access to the web through their smartphone, and oftentimes a phone alert is the best way to reach them. According to a recent Pew Research study, 43 percent of individuals making less than $30,000 a year own a smartphone. Related studies found that the majority of cell phone owners possess a smartphone over a “feature phone,” and 88 percent of all U.S. adults own a cell phone.

Sean Sullivan, an Illinois attorney who has handled many tenant-landlord cases, said he’s most excited about the app’s ability to keep a digital record.

“As a lawyer who handles many landlord-tenant disputes, I think this is a great idea. Oftentimes these cases are difficult to prove one way or the other because they usually just come down to the testimony of two parties with almost exactly opposite stories,” said Sullivan. “I look at this as a tool that can help prove the testimony of one side over the other.”

Despite his optimism, Sullivan said it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be easy to get a judge to admit the digital records into evidence.

“The only snag I see with this as an attorney is in terms of the rules of evidence and how to get anything from this site admitted into evidence,” said Sullivan. “As an attorney, I may know there is a document or support for my client’s story out there, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is admissible as evidence.”

Sullivan finished by saying the app “is a great step in the right direction, and at the very least, it can provide attorneys with more facts to support their side in settlement negotiations.”

Related sources: Chicago Tribune, PCMag.com

Lengthy Legal Battle Ahead for “Fifty Shades of Grey” Divorce Case

A marriage that began in 2005 has ended with a lawsuit alleging sexual assault, battery, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, according to the federal case that was heard this week.

Kimberley O’Brien took the stand Tuesday to testify against her husband Kevin Anderson, from whom she filed for divorce from in 2006.  Astonishingly, the federal civil case had been litigated for seven years before O’Brien had the ability to take the stand in her defense.

In her suit, O’Brien claims that she and Anderson lived a luxurious lifestyle that included trips to Switzerland and Italy, but their marriage took a turn shortly after they exchanged vows.

According to O’Brien, she was sexually assaulted on her honeymoon in California.  O’Brien claims Anderson struck her in the back of the head, tied her up and sexually violated her.  She also states that Anderson left her bound overnight.

“You will never tell anyone about this and if you are a good slave this will never happen again,” Anderson allegedly told O’Brien the next morning.

O’Brien also claims that Anderson made her walk around their house naked and told her to refer to him as “master”.

“It was the biggest mistake of my life ever being with this man,” O’Brien said in court.

Husband Claims Mutual Relationship

Anderson said the relationship was nothing more than two consenting adults living out their fantasies. According to him, it was O’Brien who brought the sadomasochist fantasies into the bedroom, and she wanted to be tied up on their honeymoon.

She said, “This is our last night here – let’s go big,” according to Anderson’s attorney Chris Cole.  Anderson’s attorney also states that the couple decided on a safe word, but O’Brien never used it during their sexual romp.

Millions of Dollars at Stake

The case has received national attention because of the amount of money at stake.  O’Brien is seeking $10 million in damages for her pain and suffering.  Anderson’s camp believes O’Brien is simply trying to seek a quick payday.

“This is a case largely driven by revenge and greed,” said Cole.

One of the biggest reasons this case has taken so long is because the couple seemed more interested in a “master-slave” contract than a prenuptial agreement.  Family Law Attorney Sean Sullivan said finances and property holdings should always be examined before a couple gets married, especially when a vast amount is involved.

What strikes me most is that this case has been litigated for 7 years.  The main reason for this is because there is a marital estate that reaches into the millions. With an estate that large, both sides would have been better served entering into a pre-marital agreement. They could have avoided such prolonged litigation and saved thousands in legal fees by agreeing before this marriage even occurred that there would be an equitable division of the marital estate in the event the marriage broke down.

If two parties are contemplating marriage and the marital estate in question has significant financial resources, then the parties are much better off entering into a pre-marital agreement. Some people feel these are not romantic and it means the marriage is doomed from the start. I look at them in much more of a practical light. I hope the parties live happily ever after and any pre-marital agreement drafted never has to be enacted. But if things do not work out, then a carefully drafted pre-marital agreement can save both parties time and money lost arguing in court.

This will no doubt be a difficult case for jurors to decide on. They are tasked with deciding if these acts that occurred were the result of abuse and coercion or choices made by consenting adults. What is interesting is that this case was brought as a civil case and not a criminal case. If these acts were forced on her as the wife claims, then the husband’s conduct amounts to criminal action. However, if this was indeed shared sexual interests and the parties entered into the acts voluntarily, then the root of this case is decidedly something else entirely.  

Related source:  Chicago Tribune

Chicago Limo Driver Charged With DUI While Driving Teens to Prom

A Chicago limousine driver who was over the legal limit was arrested for DUI earlier this week when he drunkenly shuttled more than 20 area teenagers to their prom.

Richard L. Madison, 54, was charged with driving under the influence and reckless driving after students reported that he was driving erratically while chauffeuring the students to prom.

According to the police report, Madison allegedly backed into a ditch and slammed on the brakes numerous times during the ride.  Kelly Dano, who was aboard the limo, said Madison’s driving put everyone in danger.

“”He hopped over a median and cut off 3 cars and then…he took us to the wrong hotel, he took us to the Hyatt hotel instead of Abbington Place so we had 5 more miles to go,” said Dano.

Some fearful students even called their parents during the ride to inform them of Madison’s behavior.  Students later alerted two off-duty police officers about Madison’s driving once they arrived at Abbington Place.

Madison eventually submitted to a Breathalyzer test.  He blew a 0.22, nearly three times the legal limit of 0.08 percent.

Madison claimed mechanical issues caused the ride to seem erratic.

“I’m not guilty, but it is what it is,” said Madison. “The bus needs wheel alignment and that’s why it was moving the way it did.”

A spokesperson for the limousine company said a full inspection was ordered, and no mechanical issues were revealed.  The company fired Madison earlier this week.

Brett Appelman comments

A limo, taxi, bus or truck is considered a “Commercial Vehicle” in the state of Illinois. To be licensed to drive a commercial vehicle in Illinois, you must test for and receive a Commercial Driver’s License, commonly referred to as a “CDL”.  The standards of driving while licensed with a CDL are much more stringent than with a regular license.  A DUI will get your CDL revoked, and make it very difficult to ever get it back in the future.

Aside from the licensing issues, this driver is facing an Aggravated DUI charge.  Aggravated means that there were special circumstances that make the charges worse; they carry heavier penalties.  Committing a DUI with children in the vehicle is an automatic aggravator.  If any of the prom-goers were 16 or under, this driver is facing mandatory jail time and community service, on top of the usual DUI penalties, such as fines, and alcohol treatment.

He immediately lost his job, and likely will lose his CDL if he is convicted on the DUI charges.  He needs to find a lawyer that is experienced in DUI defense, and with CDL issues, to try to save his livelihood.

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 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

Illinois Kindergarten Teacher Suspended for Letting Minors Consume Alcohol

An elementary school teacher in Illinois has been placed on administrative leave after allegedly allowing minors to consume alcohol at her home.

Wendy Bunnell, 39, faces two counts of allowing minors to drink alcohol at her residence, which carries a possible $1,000 fine.  Bunnell teaches at a local elementary school, while all of the students involved attend a separate high school.

According to the report, Bunnell allowed her 14-year-old to throw a party where as many as a dozen of his friends attended.  The police were informed that although Bunnell did not provide alcohol for the minors, she knew that they brought it to her house with the intention of consuming it.

As is commonplace these days, police learned of the alleged incident after the teens began talking about the party on Facebook and Twitter.  A concerned citizen reported the posts to a local detective, who brought the matter to the authorities.

Police brought some of the teens in for questioning, where a few of them exchanged testimony for immunity.

According to another report, Bunnell might have bigger issues to worry about.  A parent one of the teens alleges that her son has been suspended from sporting activities at the high school because it was a second violation of the Student-Athlete Honor Code.  The mother said she believed her child when he said that he hadn’t been drinking, and she feels her son is being targeted by the school because he allegedly engaged in a sex act with the kindergarten teacher.  The student in question is 17 years old, meaning that he is viewed as an adult under Illinois State Law, but the most recent allegations may make it more difficult for Bunnell to keep her job.

Bunnell is due in court on April 4.

Brett Appelman comments

This woman is being charged with a misdemeanor, so it is highly unlikely that she will go to jail for the charge of providing alcohol to minors.

However, many jobs, particularly jobs that involve working with children, have a contract with a “Morals Clause.”  These contracts can state that any action that makes the school “look bad” or puts the school in a “Bad Light” can be cause for suspension or termination.  This teacher may very well end up being fired for this incident.

Much more troubling is the allegation that she had sexual contact with one of the high school students.  It is currently merely an allegation, and she is presumed innocent of any illegal actions, but if she is ever charged criminally with sexual contact with a minor she will find it very difficult to secure a teaching position in the future.  An allegation of this nature will certainly make any potential school board very wary about hiring her.

Again, we stress that these are merely allegations, and she has not been charged with any sexual crimes, and that she is presumed innocent of any criminal actions.

Related source:  DailyMail.co.uk, WJBDRadio.com

St. Patrick’s Day Means More DUI Patrols in Kane County

If you plan on celebrating St. Patrick’s Day this weekend, you might want to think twice about driving if you’ve had a few beers.

The Kane County State’s Attorney’s Office has announced that they will once again be conducting a “no-refusal system” for suspected drunk drivers this holiday weekend.

Kane County is no stranger to the no-refusal system, as law enforcement officials conducted a similar operation over Thanksgiving last year.  Authorities did not specify which municipalities would take part in the operation.

The no refusal system is basically an expedited DUI procedure that allows officers to have direct contact with a judge that can issue a warrant at any hour of the day.  This ensures that suspected drunk drivers are required to submit to a blood or breath test.  Officers like this approach because most suspects consent to the test when they are told that a judge is standing by to issue a warrant, which in turn saves the officer time.

Joe McMahon, the State’s Attorney for Kane County, said he hopes the announcement will encourage citizens to make wise decisions this weekend.  He also said the program shows that the county is serious about cracking down on drunk driving.

“This office has a responsibility to prosecute DUI offenders, and to educate the public not to drive when they drink,” said McMahon “As has been our practice, I will not say which municipalities will participate. I only will announce when we will have the no-refusal operation.”

This weekend will mark the 12^th time that Kane County has implemented the no refusal system.  105 drivers have been charged with DUI over the previous 11 operations.

The Kane County State’s Attorney’s felt that St. Patrick’s Day weekend was a good time to renew the program.  The county conducted the program on the same holiday weekend in 2012, and charged 22 people with driving under the influence.

Brett Appelman comments

Normally, a driver who is arrested for a DUI can refuse to take any and all sobriety tests – the “Field Sobriety Tests” which include standing on one leg, walking a straight line, and a vision test, as well as the two different breathalyzer tests, the PBT at the car and the official breathalyzer at the police station.

Illinois law allows a driver to refuse these tests with no criminal repercussions.  The only real consequence of refusing is that your driver’s license will be suspended for a longer period of time than if you had done the tests.

We normally counsel our clients to refuse all tests.  It is far better to have your license suspended for a longer period than to give the prosecutor direct evidence that you were driving under the influence of alcohol.

These no-refusal weekends force drivers to consent to the tests, or wait to see if the judge on call will grant a warrant to take their blood.  A driver can still refuse to do the breathalyzer test, but the warrant will allow the police to forcefully take blood from the driver.  This can result in the license consequences for refusing the tests, along with the police obtaining the DUI evidence anyway.

Related source:  Huntley Patch