This week, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report on "Firearm Violence, 1993-2001," http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf, which seemingly refutes the public's perception regarding firearm violence. The report indicated that both firearm related homicides and non-fatal firearm crimes are significantly down during the time period examined.
The report was primarily based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey but also took into account information from the School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study, the FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports, the Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities and the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities.
Since some of the data is based on self-reporting information, it is difficult to determine the efficacy of the report.
The highlights of the report indicated, in part, that firearm related homicides declined 39 percent from 1993 to 2011 and non-fatal firearms crimes declined 60 percent during the same period. BJS further reported that firearm violence accounted for about 70 percent of all homicides and less than 10 percent of all nonfatal violent crime.
No one should be the victim of violence, firearm-related or not. This report seemingly disputes the public perception that crimes by means of firearms have increased.
Lori G. Levin
Attorney at Law
180 N. LaSalle, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60601
888-748-4095
levin@lorilevinlaw.com
www.lorilevinlaw.com
This post is a follow-up on an earlier one regarding the Illinois State Auditor General's report on the limited adherence of counties statewide to report mental health findings to the Illinois State Police for its background checks for Firearm Owner's Identification Cards. That post may be found at http://www.lorilevinlaw.com/2/post/2012/05/illinois-auditor-general-releases-report-on-effectiveness-of-illinois-firearms-owners-identification-card-act.html. The Auditor General's report indicated that only Cook, LaSalle and Bureau counties were the only three that routinely followed mandated reporting.
Today, the Chicago Tribune reported at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-chief-justice-mentally-ill-guns-0510-20130510,0,1619747.story that Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride issued a memorandum reminding all Illinois judges to direct circuit court clerk's to forward to the Illinois State Police orders determining that persons have mental health problems.
Lori G. Levin
Attorney at Law
180 N. LaSalle, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60601
888-748-4095
levin@lorilevinlaw.com
www.lorilevinlaw.com
This week, I was notified that I have been reappointed to the Illinois State Bar Association's Standing Committee on Continuing Legal Education, Standing Committee on Women and the Law and the Criminal Justice Section Council. I have been a long-time member of these committees and council and am completing a two-year appointment as Chair of the Standing Committee on CLE. I will also continue as a member of the Assembly, the ISBA's governing body.
During the course of my career, I have found that participation in bar association activities is not only a good mechanism to give back to the profession but it also enhances my skills and expertise. I look forward to another good bar association year.
Lori G. Levin
Attorney at Law
180 N. LaSalle, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60601
888-748-4095
levin@lorilevinlaw.com
www.lorilevinlaw.com
This morning, I will chair the Illinois State Bar Association's Standing Committee on Continuing Legal Education's spring meeting. For two years, it has been my pleasure to serve in this position.
The Illinois State Bar Association is one of the premier providers of continuing legal education. During my tenure as chair, the CLE committee has implemented the Board of Governors' mandate to provide on a yearly basis 15 hours of free programming for members of the ISBA. The committee has chosen some of our highest rated programs for our members to view free of charge.
Although I have held other bar leadership positions, being chair of this hard-working committee has been one of the most challenging and rewarding ones that I have held. Although we are a volunteer bar association, the programs produced and executed are professional and enhance the profession. I highly recommend our on-site, studio and internet based programming.
Although today's meeting will be the last that I chair, I look forward to continuing to work with the committee in my position as ex-officio.
The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin has posted that all court proceedings have been cancelled today in the Second Municipal District of the Circuit Court of Cook County due to flooding. As of this posting, the Circuit Court's website does not mention any closings.
Should you have a case scheduled for the Skokie courthouse, please contact your attorney to confirm the closing and to ascertain your new court date.
Lori G. Levin
Attorney at Law
180 N. LaSalle, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60601
888-748-4095
levin@lorilevinlaw.com
www.lorilevinlaw.com
Today, the United States Supreme Court, in Missouri V. McNeely, 569 U.S. __ (No. 11-1425)(2013), ruled that absent exigent circumstances, police officers must request search warrants to forcibly draw blood from persons who they have probable cause to believe have been driving under the influence of alcohol. The Court rejected a request for a per se rule that the nature of alcohol in a person's blood, and its dissipation as time goes by, is an exigent circumstance in itself.
In the instant case, the driver refused to submit to a blood draw and the officer did not seek a warrant but merely requested that hospital personnel draw the driver's blood. the officer testified that he did not believe that securing a warrant was necessary. The trial court determined that there was no emergency, besides the fact that the blood alcohol level was dissipating, and suppressed the blood test result. The Missouri State Supreme Court agreed, as did the United States Supreme Court.
Today's decision means that the Court will review the warrantless drawing of blood on a case-by-case basis and that it will not allow a unilateral practice of warrantless blood-draws of all motorists suspected of driving under the influence.
Lori G. Levin
Attorney at Law
180 N. LaSalle, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60601
888-748-4095
levin@lorilevinlaw.com
www.lorilevinlaw.com
This morning I will attend the Illinois State Bar Association's Criminal Justice Section Council meeting. Participating in bar association councils and committees allows this firm to stay current on criminal justice issues as well as pending legislation.
As a chair of other bar committees and former bar association president and leader, I have helped influence the legal profession as well as Illinois legislation. It is a privilege to participate in such activities.
Lori G. Levin
Attorney at Law
180 N. LaSalle, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60601
888-748-4095
levin@lorilevinlaw.com
www.lorilevinlaw.com
Yesterday, Circuit Court of Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans announced that on Monday, April 15, no electronic communications and internet devices will be allowed at the felony courthouse at 26th and California. The ban was initially announced earlier this year but enforcement was postponed. The Court indicated that the ban will be extended on a rolling basis to the other courthouses, with the exception of the Richard J. Daley Center. The Court indicated that the purpose of the ban is to ensure the integrity of the criminal proceeding and safety of all parties. Certain persons will be allowed to carry devices into the court house. They include: - persons with disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, who require electronic devices for effective communication;
- current or former judges;
- licensed attorneys;
- members of the news media;
- local, state, and federal law enforcement officers;
- employees of any local, state, or federal government agencies or offices;
- any person reporting for jury duty pursuant to summons;
- building and maintenance tradespeople, equipment repairpersons, and vendors;
- domestic violence advocates and counselors as defined by 750 ILCS 60/227(a)(2);
- authorized employees and agents of attorneys;
- any person or category of persons pursuant to order of court;
- persons who are present at the courthouse to obtain civil orders of protection, stalking no contact orders, or civil no contact orders or parties to a proceeding who are present at the courthouse to attend a proceeding related to an underlying order of protection, stalking no contact order, civil no contact order or other related proceedings;
- participants in a domestic violence assistance program;
- persons required by court order or the sheriff to wear an electronic monitoring device; and
- parties to orders of protection who are required to carry a GPS devices.
The full press release may be found at the Court's website at: http://www.cookcountycourt.org/MEDIA/ViewPressRelease/tabid/338/ArticleId/2199/Electronic-communications-Internet-devices-ban-goes-into-effect-April-15-at-26th-and-California.aspx Lori G. LevinAttorney at Law180 N. LaSalle, Suite 3700Chicago, IL 60601888-748-4095levin@lorilevinlaw.comwww.lorilevinlaw.com
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. _ (No. 11-564) (2013), that taking a drug-sniffing dog on a private person's porch was a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution as it was an impermissible search unsupported by probable cause.
In Jardines, the Miami-Dade Police Department had received a tip that marijuana was being grown in the Jardines home. The police department did nothing to verify this tip. A month passed and the police along with the Drug Enforcement Administration went to the Jardines home. A fifteen minute surveillance showed no activity. The police then took a dog trained to detect the scent of drugs onto the defendant's land and, more specifically, his porch. The dog reacted and gave a positive response for narcotics. Based on that response, a warrant was applied for and issued. During the search, marijuana plants were recovered and Jardines was charged with trafficking in cannablis.
the defendant filed a motion to suppress the search which was granted by the trial court, reversed by the Florida appellate court, and reinstated by the Florida Supreme Court.
The United States Supreme Court agreed with the trial and Florida Supreme Court, ruling that the investigation of the Jardines home was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The defendant's home as well as the curtilage, the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home is part of the home for Constitutional purposes.
The Court ruled that a police officer without a warrant may approach a home and knock on the door but cannot introduce a trained forensic canine to explore the area around the home hoping to discover incriminating evidence. The Court explained that a visitor may knock on someone's door but that the license to do so would be exceeded to bring a metal detector or a bloodhound into the garden. The Court further stated that "(o)ne virtue of the Fourth Amendment's property-rights baseline is that it keeps easy cases easy. That the officers learned what they learned only by physically intruding on Jardines' property to gather evidence is enough to establish that a search occurred."
Lori G. Levin
Attorney at Law
180 N. LaSalle, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60601
888-748-4095
levin@lorilevinlaw.com
www.lorilevinlaw.com
The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the United States Department of Justice recently published a report "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2010-Statistical Tables," which can be found at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft10st.pdf. The report analyzes the data of the 118 million applications for firearm transfers or permits that have been subject to background checks since the Brandy Handgun Violence Prevention Act went into effect in 1994 through the end of 2010.
The Brady Act prohibits the transfer of a firearm to a person who is under indictment for, or has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (a felony); is a fugitive; is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance; has been adjudicated as a "mental defective" or committed to a mental institution; is an undocumented person or has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa; was dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces; has renounced U.S. citizenship; is subject to a restraining order; has been convicted of domestic violence or is under 18 for long guns or 21 for handguns.
Previously, this blog contained an entry regarding the Illinois Auditor General's report regarding the effectiveness of the Illinois Firearms Identification Card registration, http://www.lorilevinlaw.com/2/category/gun%20registration/1.html.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics report reveals similar surprising details. Of the 118 million applications for firearm transfers or permits, BJS found that 2.1 million applications, or 1.8% were denied. The most common reason for denial was a felony conviction or pending indictment.
Other interesting statistics were that in 2010, nearly a quarter of the denials were appealed and more than a third of the appeals resulted in a reversal of the denial.
Lori G. Levin
Attorney at Law
180 N. LaSalle, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60601
|
RSS Feed
