Years ago, when a person wanted to take a photo, they needed to have a camera with film. They then had to take or send that film somewhere to be developed into hard copy prints. Today, smartphones, electronic devices, social media, text messaging, and emails have all changed the way we take and share photos. This also includes photos and videos that could be considered “racy” or inappropriate for public viewing. This has led to materials that were meant to be private shared without the subject’s permission by another party whose intention is to cause harm. This has become such a problem that it has resulted in many states, including Illinois, to pass revenge porn laws.

Revenge Porn

Revenge porn is a type of digital abuse where one party distributes intimate material of another party without their consent. It often occurs between couples who break up – hence the “revenge” description – but can also be involved in blackmail attempts.

In 2015, the state of Illinois confronted revenge porn issues head-on and passed a law that made the act a Class 4 felony. Penalties if convicted include up to three years in prison and a fine of up to $25,000. In addition, the victim can file a civil lawsuit against the defendant for financial damages.

While traffic violation fines can be a nuisance, they can also mean losing your license if those fines are unpaid. Under current Illinois law, if a driver has five or more unpaid camera tickets, their license can be suspended. If a driver has just one unpaid traffic ticket, the state can put a hold on their license that stops the driver from being able to renew it. But a new Illinois law about to go into effect July 1 will put an end to all that.

Illinois SAFE-T Act

Several months ago, Illinois lawmakers approved a massive criminal justice reform omnibus, the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity – Today (SAFE-T) Act. Included among the many issues the bill addressed were:

• All Illinois police officers will be required to use body-worn cameras by January 1, 2025.

  ...

If you are a fan of television crime shows, you have likely watched a scene where police characters play the “good cop, bad cop” roles. This is where one officer comes off as aggressive and menacing to the person who is being interrogated, while the other officer acts as their ally, encouraging them to tell the truth about what they know regarding the crime being investigated. Police officers are allowed to use many tactics like this in order to get a suspect or material witness to confess what they know. But just how far is too far and what law enforcement actions violate a person’s constitutional rights?

False Confessions

The Fifth Amendment grants several rights to protect individuals during a criminal investigation or proceeding, including guaranteeing the individual due process of law, prohibits double jeopardy, and protects the individual against self-incrimination. Unfortunately, the Fifth Amendment does not always protect an individual from any of the many deceitful tactics that police officers use to coerce a confession from a suspect. The ability for law enforcement to use these tactics has even been approved by the U.S. Supreme Court (Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731).

One of the more frequent ploys that police use in order to get a suspect to confess to a crime is to lie about the evidence they actually have. They may tell the suspect that they have DNA evidence linking them to the crime when they actually do not have that evidence. They can also lie about another suspect’s “confession” that the person they are interrogating helped in the commission of the crime.

It is no secret that Illinois and the rest of the country are in the grips of a major drug epidemic. It is estimated that the United States is losing more than 80,000 victims each year to drug overdoses. Because Illinois still treats drug possession of any amount of controlled substances as a criminal offense, victims who are overdosing or friends who are with them at the time may be hesitant to call 911 for help because they are afraid they will be arrested. Fortunately, a new Illinois law may save lives in these situations.

Illinois HB 158

Naloxone is an emergency antidote that is used in opioid overdoses. When a person is suffering an overdose, a shot of naloxone can literally save their life. Emergency responders can administer naloxone if they are called to the scene of an overdose in time. A new law that recently went into effect in Illinois removes any risk of punishment for a small amount of drug possession if a person is seeking help for a drug overdose. This will ensure that a person can call 911 and receive emergency assistance without the fear of facing criminal charges. Lawmakers and law enforcement officials who support the new law say their goal is to enable people who are struggling with drug addiction to get the help they need.

Under the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, drugs are broken down into five different schedules. Opioids and opium derivatives fall into the Schedule I class. About 80 percent of all fatal overdoses that happen each year in Illinois involve opioids. Under the current law, possession of a Schedule I drug is charged as a Class 1 felony. A conviction comes with a minimum of one year in jail and hefty fines.

Current Illinois state law requires residents to have a valid Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card in order to purchase or possess a firearm or ammunition. Failure to have a FOID card can result in misdemeanor or felony charges, depending on the circumstances and the criminal record of the individual being charged. However, a recent ruling by an Illinois judge and a new bill working its way through the Illinois legislature could change all that.

Court Ruling

A White County Circuit Court judge has ruled that requiring citizens to have a FOID card is unconstitutional. The ruling was made in a criminal case from 2017 where an elderly White County resident was charged with violating the law because she owned a rifle but did not have a FOID card. The judge dismissed the charges against the woman, saying that requiring a FOID card violates both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 22 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.

This was the second time the case was dismissed in the county court. A prior ruling in 2018 also ruled that the charges violated the woman’s rights, prompting the state to immediately appeal the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court. The higher court did not hear the case, sending it back to the lower court because of questions regarding the process the lower court used to reach its decision.