Robert J Callahan | Chicago, IL Criminal Defense Lawyer | Attorney
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Foursquare
  • Google+
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo
  • YouTube
  • RSS
CALL NOW 312-322-9000
Menu
  • Home
    • News
    • Press Releases
    • Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
      • CLEMENCY GRANTED
      • STORE OWNER SHOOTS & KILLS LOOTER- NO CHARGES FILED AFTER HIRING
      • CAN YOUR LOVED ONE BE RELEASED FROM COOK COUNTY JAIL DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS?
      • COVID-19 IN THE COOK COUNTY JAIL
      • ARRESTED IN CHICAGO FOR AGGRAVATED UUW BUT HAVE A FOID? WTF?
      • CHICAGO STYLE CRIME
      • SORRY DUDE, YOU STILL CAN’T SMOKE WEED IN YOUR CAR
      • SEALING AND EXPUNGEMENT YOUR CRIMINAL RECORD IN ILLINOIS
      • .08 BUT YOUR LAWN LOOKS GREAT – WHAT CAN & CAN’T YOU DRIVE DRUNK?
      • CAN THE POLICE ENTER YOUR HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT?
      • CHICAGO POLICE DIDN’T READ ME MY RIGHTS?
      • POTENTIAL CHANGES IN ILLINOIS CRIMINAL LAW
      • Close
    • The Chicago Criminal Defense Attorneys Scholarship
    • Criminal Defense Law Resources
    • Chicago Criminal Lawyer Videos
    • About Our Defense Firm
      • Robert J. Callahan
      • Jeffrey Marx
      • Paul C. Meyers
      • Hablo Espanol
        • Video en Español
        • Close
      • Close
    • FAQs
    • Close
  • Victories
  • Clemency Attorneys
    • Clemency in Illinois
    • Illinois Executive Clemency Attorney
    • Close
  • Criminal Law
    • Clemency in Illinois
    • Gun Charge in Illinois FAQs
    • Drug Arrests and Drug Charges
    • Class X Felony Defense
    • Assault and Battery Criminal Defense Lawyer
    • Chicago Traffic Offenses
      • Illinois DUI Charges
      • DUI in Chicago, IL
      • Leaving Accident
      • Close
    • Criminal Defense Lawyer For Juvenile Crime in Chicago
    • Felony Weapons Charges
    • White Collar Crimes and Criminal Cases
    • CHICAGO CRIME: BY THE NUMBERS
    • Close
  • Federal Charges
    • The FBI has Questioned me; do I need an attorney?
    • Federal Conspiracy Charges
    • Federal Weapons Charges
    • Federal RICO Charges
    • Close
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
    • Live Chat
    • Call Us at 312-322-9000
    • Email Us
    • Close
  • Home
  • Blog
  • CELLPHONES & YOUR RIGHTS: US SUPREME COURT ON SPEED DIAL THIS NOVEMBER
Click to Call 312-322-9000

Recent Criminal Case Victories

Call (312) 322-9000 and Start Fighting for Your Rights.

Click on the criminal defense case victory links below to learn more about how we won each case.

Recently Won Cases

(Actual Dates and Cases)

December 2020

Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapon – Class 4 Felony – REDUCED TO CLASS A MISDEMEANOR

Driving While License Suspended – CASE DISMISSED

Unlawful Use of Weapon Class A Misdemeanor – CASE DISMISSED

Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapon- Class 4 Felony – REDUCED TO CLASS A MISDEMEANOR

Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapon- Class 4 Felony – REDUCED TO CLASS A MISDEMEANOR

Aggravated Speeding- Class B Misdemeanor – REDUCED TO PETTY TRAFFIC TICKET

November 2020

Possession of a Controlled Substance – Class 4 Felony – CASE DISMISSED

October 2020

Leaving the Scene – Class A Felony – CASE DISMISSED

No Stalking Petition – VACATED

Aggravated UUW – Class 4 Felony – FINDING NO PROBABLE CAUSE

Aggravated UUW – Class 4 Felony – CASE DISMISSED

September 2020

Disorderly Conduct – CASE DISMISSED

August 2020

Aggravated UUW – Class 4 – FINDING NO PROBABLE CAUSE

JULY 2020

MB and son JB – Murder Charges ruled self defense – CASE DISMISSED

Petition for Governor’s Pardon and Clemency – PETITION GRANTED

Three (3) separate cases of manufacturing/delivery of cocaine – Class 1 felonies – CASE DISMISSED

MARCH to JUNE COURTS CLOSED DUE TO COVID-19

APRIL 2020

Violation of Order of Protection- Class A misdemeanor – CASE DISMISSED

Leaving the Scene of Accident- Class A misdemeanor – CASE DISMISSED

Felony Sealing – GRANTED

Felony Gun Case Sealing – GRANTED

Battery- class A misdemeanor – CASE DISMISSED

Aggravated Sexual Abuse Investigation – NOT CHARGED

March 2020

JB – Class X- MDMA/Ecstasy Possession with Intent to Deliver – looking at 6-30 years IDOC – CASE DISMISSED

Disorderly Conduct – CASE DISMISSED

Misdemeanor – CASE DISMISSED

February 2020

MF -1st Degree Murder – ACQUITTED

Battery to a child – CASE DISMISSED

Order of Protection – CASE DISMISSED

Possession of Cannabis – Class 4 Felony; Unlawful Possession of Weapon – CASE DISMISSED

Deceptive Practices – Class 4 felony – CASE DISMISSED

DUI – REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING

January 2020

AW – Aggravated Arson-class X – Dismissed

Criminal Trespass to Land – Class A Misdemeanor – CASE DISMISSED

December 2018

Possession of Controlled Substance- Class 4 Felony – CASE DISMISSED

Possession of Cannabis – Class 4 Felony & Unlawful Use of a Weapon – Class A Misdemeanor – DISMISSED

November 2018

Battery – Misdemeanor – BENCH TRIAL- NOT GUILTY

Battery – Misdemeanor – CASE DISMISSED

Battery and Obstruction of Justice – CASE DISMISSED

People v. GK, Agg Speeding – Misdemeanor – REDUCED TO PETTY OFFENSE

DUI – REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING

People v. AN, DUI – REDUCED TO RECKLESS DRIVING

October 2018

Battery – CASE DISMISSED

Assault – CASE DISMISSED

Felony Class 4 possession of a controlled substance – CASE DISMISSED

Disorderly conduct – CASE DISMISSED

Felony aggravated DUI – NOT GUILTY

September 2018

Felony Class 3 criminal fortification of a residence or building – FINDING OF NO PROBABLE CAUSE AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING – CASE DISMISSED

Battery – CASE DISMISSED

Class 4 felony possession of heroin – CASE DISMISSED

Domestic battery – CASE DISMISSED

Violation of an Order of Protection – DISMISSED

Battery – CASE DISMISSED

Unlawful use of a weapon – CASE DISMISSED

Class 4 felony possession of cocaine – CASE DISMISSED

August 2018

Battery – CASE DISMISSED

Class 4 felony possession of a controlled substance – CASE DISMISSED

July 2018

Battery – CASE DISMISSED

Class 4 felony possession of a controlled substance – CASE DISMISSED

Driving on a suspended license – CASE DISMISSED

Possession of marijuana – CASE DISMISSED

Class 4 felony possession of a controlled substance – CASE DISMISSED

June 2018

DUI – Misdemeanor – DISMISSED ON MOTION TO DISMISS 06/2018

Battery Misdemeanor – DISMISSED

Civil Forfeiture – HEARING WON – CAR RETURNED

May 2018

Pardon – GRANTED W/ LEAVE TO EXPUNGE

Battery Misdemeanor – DISMISSED – CONVINCED STATE IT WAS SELF DEFENSE

Expungement – EXPUNGEMENT GRANTED

April 2018

Executive Clemency Petition (AKA Governor’s Pardon) for Class 2 felony burglary – GRANTED

Battery – CASE DISMISSED

March 2018

Class 2 unlawful use of a weapon by a felon – NOT GUILTY

February 2018

Domestic battery – CASE DISMISSED

January 2018

Domestic battery – CASE DISMISSED

December 2017

Class 4 felony possession of a controlled substance – FINDING OF NO PROBABLE CAUSE AT PRELIMINARY HEARING – CASE DISMISSED

Class X Felony Cannabis Case – NOT GUILTY

  • Buffer
  • Pin It

Related

Testimonials

Click to Call 312-322-9000

CELLPHONES & YOUR RIGHTS: US SUPREME COURT ON SPEED DIAL THIS NOVEMBER

October 27, 2017 / Robert J Callahan / Blog, Uncategorized
0
 

Federal Criminal Defense and Cellphones

At the end of November, the US Supreme Court will examine the application of the so called “third-party doctrine” to cellphone providers disclosing records to law enforcement. The basic principle behind this doctrine is that the 4th amendment does not recognize an expectation of privacy in information voluntarily turned over to third parties. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967); United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). Translation: the government does not need to get a warrant to obtain records from your phone providers. In fact, as we will discuss below, they arguably don’t even need probable cause. But in the age of smartphones, how far does this doctrine really reach before it offends the 4th amendment?   In Carpenter v. U.S., the government accused 29 year old Timothy Carpenter of being the head of an armed robbery ring that committed 5 robberies in the Detroit area and one in Ohio over a five month span in 2011. Ironically, the target of the robberies was none other than cell phone stores. The FBI, without getting a warrant, obtained 12,898 points of location data from Mr. Carpenter’s cellphone provider during this time.[i] This allowed them to determine his location by connecting his cellphone to the nearest cellphone tower. Unsurprisingly, this information placed Mr. Carpenter in the area of the robberies at or around the time they occurred. Mr. Carpenter tried to suppress this evidence before trial, however, the district court denied his motion. After a two-week trial, he was convicted and later sentenced to 119 years in prison.  The appellate court affirmed his convictions and in June the United States Supreme Court agreed to take up Mr. Carpenter’s issue this fall.  

The Current State of the Law: No Warrant Necessary:

In Mr. Carpenter’s case, law enforcement utilized the Stored Communications Act to obtain location data on his cellphone.[ii] Passed in 1986, this law allows law enforcement to obtain a court order to compel electronic communications from a provider if “the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe the contents of a wire or electronic communication . . . are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”[iii] The specific language used there is key. The language “specific and articulable facts” points more to a standard of reasonable suspicion than probable cause. It can simply be said that probable cause requires more. Further, the government is not required to provide notice to the subscriber and the electronic communication providers are immune from civil action for complying with a court order under this statute.[iv] Whether or not this statute or the standard it establishes now survives 4th amendment scrutiny, given the technological advancement in cellphones and all the metadata they contain, will be front and center in this case.   Undoubtedly, the Court will also examine the viability of the so-called “third-party doctrine.” The doctrine arises out of the 1970s with two seminal cases: United States v. Miller & Smith v. Maryland.[v]  In Miller, the Court held that bank records obtained without a warrant and used as evidence in trial for illegal whiskey distilling did not violate the 4th amendment.  Specifically, they found the information was “voluntarily conveyed to banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business.”[vi] This doctrine then evolved in Maryland v. Smith, where the court found no 4th amendment violation occurred when a telephone provider put a device on a phone with a warrant and at the request of the police. The device recorded all of the phone numbers called from a robbery suspect’s home.[vii]  Out of these two cases, the “third-party doctrine” has been applied for decades.   In his petition, Mr. Carpenter makes two major points:
  • Five months of records was a lengthy disclosure that was a search which required a warrant. Given the advancement of technology and the information it contains since Smith and Miller, the Court should not automatically follow their reasoning & examine it in a modern context.[viii]
  • That even under Smith and Miller, he did not “in any meaningful way” voluntarily convey information about his location to his provider by simply making or receiving a call.[ix]
  The government, sees no such issues and argues that:
  • That Mr. Carpenter has no ownership interest in the cellphone records turned over to law enforcement. Essentially, that this information was collected by the providers for their own purposes.[x]
  • There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in records that do not capture the content of the calls but only its location in relation to cellphone towers.[xi]
  • That the information gathered only give an inference that he was near a particular cell tower at a particular time and an “inference” is not a search.[xii]
  • Cellphone users are aware that modern cellphones transmits signals and data to cellphone towers and therefore assume this risk.[xiii]
  The type of records gathered will likely be at issue. At least one federal district court has held that historical cell site location data is not protected under the 4th amendment.[xiv] The government will likely focus on the distinction between the type of information gathered from cell tower data versus the vast amount of other metadata that was not collected. On the other hand, Mr. Carpenter is sure to remind the Court of the slippery slope of such behavior left unchecked.   The Supreme Court has recently commented on the drastic change in technology relating to cellphones and the application of the third party doctrine. In her concurring opinion in United States v. Jones, Justice Sotomayor pondered its place in the modern technological age, commenting, “[t]his approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.”[xv] Chief Justice Roberts also appears to recognize the new and pervasive role of modern cellphones. In a fairly recent holding examining the warrant requirement and smartphones, Chief Justice Roberts quipped that cellphones are now “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.”[xvi]   In taking up this issue and others concerning modern cellphones, the Supreme Court is attempting to update and clarify 4th amendment jurisprudence in this context. Such clarification is much needed to address newfound concerns specific only to a 21st century life. The ubiquitous role of cellphones in our lives, the metadata they hold, and modern events revealing government’s own interest in gathering this information (see NASA circa 2013) present new challenges to our civil rights. Law enforcement’s scope and ability to obtain cellphone records needs further interpretation to provide consistent standards for this type of governmental action. In a constantly evolving technological world where our cellphones can reveal roadmaps of our lives, let’s hope the justices don’t drop this call.   [i] United States v. Carpenter, ACLU, (Sept. 12, 2017), https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-carpenter [ii] 18 U.S.C. 121 §§ 2703. [iii] 18 U.S.C. 121 §§ 2703(d). [iv] 18 U.S.C. 121 §§ 2703(c); 18 U.S.C. 121 §§ 2703(e). [v] 425 U.S. 435 (1976); 442 U.S. 735 (1979). [vi] Miller, at 442. [vii] Smith, at 735. [viii]Petitioner’s Reply to Brief in Opposition at 18, Timothy Carpenter v. United States, No. 16-402 (January 27, 2017). [ix] Petitioner’s Reply to Brief in Opposition at 32, Timothy Carpenter v. United States, No. 16-402 (January 27, 2017). [x] Brief for The United States  in Opposition at 16, Timothy Carpenter v. United States, No. 16-402 (February 10, 2017). [xi] Brief for The United States  in Opposition at 25, Timothy Carpenter v. United States, No. 16-402 (February 10, 2017). [xii] Brief for The United States  in Opposition at 22-23, Timothy Carpenter v. United States, No. 16-402 (February 10, 2017). [xiii] Brief for The United States  in Opposition at 19 & 21, Timothy Carpenter v. United States, No. 16-402 (February 10, 2017). [xiv] United States v. Graham, 846 F. Supp. 2d 384 (D. Md. 2012). [xv] United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012), Sotomayor concurrence. [xvi] Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014).  

Location

Address and Phone

Robert J Callahan | Chicago Defense Lawyer
53 W JACKSON BLVD # 1615
CHICAGO IL 60604-3536

Phone: (312) 322-9000
Fax: (312) 427-1289



Google Map to Robert J Callahan

Unmatched Legal Expertise

Robert J. Callahan

Rated by Super Lawyers

loading …

top100_2014

 

 

 

 


Best-criminal-defense-in-chicago-2016

 

 

 

 

 

 


Robert J.Callahan and Associates, Attorneys & Lawyers Criminal, Chicago, IL

Copyright (c) 2009 to 2020 All Rights Reserved Robert J Callahan | 312-322-9000 Web Design by Link Rep