Covid-19 has changed how people do things and the practice of law is not immune to the necessary adjustments. A lot of people are asking if the courts and our office are open. The short answer is yes: the courts are still open and Harter & Schottland remains open as an essential service. ( see Executive Order 2020-10, section 1, subpart (12)( r), here: https://www2.illinois.gov/Pages/Executive-Orders/ExecutiveOrder2020-10.aspx ). Accordingly, Harter & Schottland remains committed to providing the best possible legal service to our clients. However, we also remain dedicated to our incredible team that allows us to meet high expectations every day. Therefore, we have made some changes around the office to ensure their well-being and to feel safe. First, for the time being, we are offering phone or video appointments for all new and existing clients. Limiting the number of people coming in the office is safer for everybody. However, some clients need to come in the office for various reasons such as dropping off or picking up documents. We added a protective barrier to our reception window for both our clients' and our team's safety.

A work injury requires immediate attention. Shortly thereafter, other considerations may come into play. The following is a very brief summary of the the first steps following a work injury. If an employee is injured a work, he or she should notify the employer right away. If it is not practicable to inform the employer right away, notice can be provided later, but never more than 45 days after an injury. If the injury is caused by certain other, specific and unusual types of exposure, such as radiation or occupational disease, the time limit may be extended. For example, for an injury caused by radiation, the employee is given 90 days after the employee knew or should have known of the excessive radiation to notify the employer of the injury. The Workers' Compensation Act states that an injured employee must inform the employer of the approximate date and place of the accident, if known. Notice may be given or in writing. After an employer is given notice of a work injury, the employer should first provide medical attention. This could be any thing from transportation to an emergency room or a referral to an occupational health clinic or some other treatment, as the situation warrants. The employer should also notify it's worker's compensation insurance carrier. The employer should do this even if it disputes the claim. If an employee is absent from work for three days because of a work injury, the employer is not yet obligated to pay total temporary disability. Beginning day four, however, the employer must begin such payments or inform the employee in writing why benefits are being withheld. In addition, when an employee is injured at work, the employer must submit an "Employer's First Report of Injury" to the Commission. Reports of injuries resulting in death must be reported within 2 days. Injuries resulting in illness or that are non-fatal and cause more than the loss of three scheduled work days must be reported within one month. There is no reporting requirement for injuries that cause the loss of less than three days of scheduled work. If you, a friend or a loved one are injured at work, call Harter & Schottland's worker compensation attorneys to get the advice a representation you deserve after being hurt. (847) 546-0022

The Illinois Workers' Compensation Act requires employers to carry workers' compensation insurance. "Employer" is defined very broadly and covers both private and public entities. Under certain circumstances, an employer may elect to self insure. However, to be excepted from the Act, employers must file an application with the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission for approval as a self-insurer. The failure to carry workers' compensation insurance or to get permission to self-ensure carries serious consequences to the employer. Any individual employer, corporate officer, partner or member of a limited liability company that knowingly fails to provide workers' compensation coverage under the Act is guilty of a Class 4 felony. Even if the failure to provide coverage is not done knowingly, but instead is deemed negligent, it is still a criminal offense and can be punished as a Class A misdemeanor. The criminal penalties provided for in the case of an employers knowing or negligent failure to carry workers' compensation insurance do not apply where there exists a good faith dispute as to the existence of an employment relationship. Evidence of a good faith includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the definition of "employee" as used by the Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, investigators with the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission Insurance Compliance Division may issue a citation to an employer who does not comply with its obligation to insure. The fine shall be based on the period of non-compliance. The minimum fine is $500 and may go up to $2,500. If the Commission holds a hearing and determines that an employer failed to comply with its obligation to insure under the Act, it can impose a civil penalty of up to $500 per day for each day and the minimum penalty is $10,000. Notably, under the Act, an employer is not permitted to require an employee to share the cost of worker's compensation insurance. Any such agreement made contrary to law is deemed null and void. Additionally, if an employer withholds wages from an employee to pay workers' compensation insurance premiums is also a criminal offense. Similarly, an employer may not circumvent the protections of the Act by discriminating or threatening to discriminate against an employee in any way because that person exercises the rights or remedies granted to him or her by the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act. If you have been injured at work, call Harter & Schottland today. We can fully advise you of your rights and ensure that you are fairly compensated for your work injury.

You may have heard that when traveling internationally and returning to the United States, your cell phone is subject to inspection. Some of you may brush this off as hyperbole. Some may refuse to take your cell phones out of the country to avoid any problems. Now, we do not intend to get into the realm of conspiracy theory and scare-mongering, but given that a recent Supreme Court case dealt with this issue, we though it important to bring this issue to your attention. In short, the U.S. government can take and download your phone at the border--probably. In June of 2015 one man found himself in a heap of trouble when a criminal task force conducted "Operation Culprit" at O'Hare International Airport. This operation targeted people involved in sex tourism and sex trafficking. They identified targets by coming up with a list of criteria to identify people before they even came back into the United States. Specifically, they were looking for the following: "1) U.S. citizen (2) men (3) between the ages of eighteen and fifty or sixty (4) returning from the Philippines, Thailand, or Cambodia (5) traveling alone (6) with a prior criminal history." United States v. Wanjiku, No, 18-1973, 2. They used this criteria to then further investigate those people that were flagged. Incidentally, people were flagged before they even boarded planes returning to the United States. So in 2015 as a result of Operation Culprit, they flagged one such man who they then discovered had a previous arrest for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, had been to the Philippines three times in two years, and had no business or family connections to the Philippines other than the trip. Further, he had created an email handle that authorities associated with vulgar slang for penis. Alright--if you really want to know, it was Mr. Dongerous. These factors caused Customs officials to refer the fellow to a secondary inspection area when he arrived at customs where they asked various questions, searched his bags, and took and searched his phone and other devices. Of course, agents also noted that prior to and during this secondary inspection point, this fellow demonstrated suspicious behavior such as attempting to leave the line, sweating profusely, shifting his weight, and answering questions evasively and inconsistently. During this secondary airport inspection, agents asked for access to his phone and laptop and uncovered photos they believed to contain child pornography. Agents then took the equipment for further forensic investigation, whereupon more alleged child pornography was recovered and much trouble for this man. Not surprisingly, this fellow filed a motion to suppress the arrest arguing that the search of electronic devices may be conducted only through a warrant supported by probable cause following the Supreme Court decisions in Riley v. California , 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) and Carpenter v. United States , 138 S. Ct. 2206 (20 18). This argument did not sway the district judge who found that the information known to the agents at the time of the search of the Defendant's phone was sufficient for reasonable suspicion, which was the standard required at the time this fellow was being detained at O'Hare. Indeed, the Supreme Court, in affirming the lower court, did not get into the issue of the current, actual level of suspicion required for border searches of cell phones. Instead, they found that the "agents acted in good faith when they searched the devices with reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed, at a time when no court had ever required more than a reasonable suspicion for any search at the border." United States v. Wanjiku, No, 18-1973 at 13. The Supreme Court essentially stated while Riley and Carpenter did extend additional protections to cell phone data they did not agree that this protection had been extended to the border by any case that had had an opportunity to discuss the level of suspicion necessary for border intrusions since those cases had been decided, and the Wanjiku Court also refused to get into the question. In summary, the Supreme Court held that "the agents possessed reasonable suspicion to search Wanjiku’s electronic devices ..... At the time that they conducted these searches, they reasonably relied on Supreme Court precedent that required no suspicion for non-destructive border searches of property, and nothing more than reasonable suspicion for highly intrusive border searches of persons. The Court had also indicated that probable cause and a warrant had never been required for any border search. We therefore need not reach the issue of what level of suspicion is required (if any) for searches of electronic devices at the border, and reserve that question for a case in which it matters to the outcome. " Wanjiku at 32-33 (emphasis added). So back to the initial concern of whether your phone can be searched at the border, which includes airports. The short answer is probably. While the Wanjiku court did not want to go as far as determining whether an agent could search a cell phone without any suspicion at all, it does seem to lay the groundwork in that direction. The Wanjiku court goes so far as to define the search of a cell phone as a non-destructive search and repeats over and over that non-destructive searches have often been held to need no particularized suspicion at all and that the government's interest in preventing unwanted people or things is at its Zenith at the borders. See Wanjiku at 19-20. It will take the one case of a person who gets in big trouble through a search of a cell phone that is searched with returning to the United States when that search was conducted for no reason at all to get to through the court system to pin down the courts more precisely on whether the level of suspicion required for cell phone searches should be higher than other searches given the unique nature of cell phones . We hope that person is not you! Incidentally, Operation Culprit selected about 24 individuals for secondary inspection out of 2000-3000 passengers arriving on targeted flights that day and all of this "investigation" was conducted before the passengers even set foot in Chicago.

Recently, a new law entitled The Opioid Alternative Pilot Program ("Opioid Alternative Act") became effective. Eventually, this law will allow those that have a medical condition for which opioids might be prescribed to legally access medical cannabis. While the law became effective on August 28, 2018, Illinois agencies still need to form the administrative rules that will govern the program. The Opioid Alternative Act is a response to the startling and disturbing rise of opioid related deaths in recent years. The Act itself cites that over 11,000 people have overdosed on opioids since 2008 and that in 2017 alone almost 1,900 people, twice the number that died from car accidents in the same period, died from opioid overdoses. Further the statute notes that "'[t]he opioid epidemic is the most significant public health and public safety crisis facing Illinois.'" Proponents of the new law argued not only that there are zero deaths related to cannabis overdoses, but that states with medical cannabis programs cite an over 14% decrease in the use of prescription opioids. To qualify, a person must be an Opioid Alternative Pilot Program participant, meaning he or she is a "an individual who has received a valid, written certification to participate in the Opioid Alternative Pilot Program for a medical condition for which an opioid has been or could be prescribed by a physician based on generally accepted standards of care." 410 ILCS 130/10 (r-10). To be clear, though, the person under the Opioid Alternative Pilot Program would not be considered a qualifying patient with a debilitating medical condition under the Compassionate Use Act (the existing medical cannabis law in Illinois). In fact, a qualifying patient holding a card is not able to also participate in the Opioid Alternative Pilot Program. This law seems to be very much focused on not just the potential pain relief that cannabis may provide, but also the avoidance of the need for the use of opioids. Because of this precise purpose, the Opioid Alternative Act has several limitations. The most obvious limitation is that it is short-term access to medical cannabis. The Act allows the cannabis dispensary to distribute medical cannabis for no more than 90 days to individuals participating in the Opioid Alternative Pilot Program. 410 ILCS 130/62 (e). Perhaps because of the short-term aspect of this program, those that qualify do not receive a card. Rather, they are given a written certificate on a specific form provided by the Department of Public Health. Patients must present this written certificate and a valid identification or license to have access to medical cannabis at a dispensary. The dispensary must verify that the person is a participant in the Pilot Program on the Department of Public Health's online verification system. To qualify, a person must go see his or her doctor (with which he or she has a bona fide, pre-existing relationship) and that doctor must provide a written certification that the person has a medical condition for which opioids could or have been prescribed. See 410 ILCS 130/10. The written certification is a form provided by the Department of Public Health and includes the person's name, date of birth, address and telephone number, as well as the physician's information, the length of participation in the program (limited to 90 days) and a statement identifying the medical condition that the person has been diagnosed with where an opioid has been or could have been prescribed. 410 ILCS 130/36 (d). Participants in the Opioid Alternative Pilot Program must be at least 21 years old. Again, as the administrative rules still need to be finalized, this program is not yet in effect. However, while people may still be waiting for this law to be functional, the Opioid Alternative Act did also immediately take care of some cumbersome issues within the medical cannabis related statutes. First, patients and their caregivers now do not need to submit fingerprints or consent to a background search as part of their application. Moreover, a person is no longer precluded from obtaining access to medical cannabis due to a prior drug-related felony. Second, there cannot be a fee for helping fill out an application. And, finally, the act clarifies and defines a Bona fide physician-patient relationship as one established at a hospital, physicians's office, or other health care facility in which the physician has an ongoing responsibility for the assessment, care, and treatment of a patient's debilitating condition or a symptom of the patient's debilitating condition. 410 ILCS 130/10 (z). All in all, Illinois certainly seems to be moving towards more liberal use of medical cannabis. The year 2019 will almost certainly bring some interesting new developments in this area of law, as well. The information above should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal advice. It is intended as general information only and may not reflect laws in your jurisdiction and is not a full explanation, but only a partial summary. A reading of the above does not create an attorney-client relationship. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on a matter on the basis of the above information without seeking appropriate legal or professional advice.

I just got revoked last month for DUI. Can I get reinstated right away? When someone gets revoked he or she is not eligible for full reinstatement right away. The person usually has to wait one year from the date of the revocation to be eligible for full reinstatement. Notably, however, time served on a statutory suspension is credited toward a reinstatement eligibility date. Full reinstatement means a person (Petitioner) is asking the Secretary of State (SOS) to grant full driving privileges. However, the SOS rarely grants full reinstatement at the first hearing. Further, the SOS can only grant relief that is requested. Therefore, at a first hearing, understanding that the SOS will not grant full reinstatement, counsel will request full reinstatement, as well as a restricted driving permit. If a person only requests full reinstatement and not restricted driving permit, it is unlikely that the person will obtain any driving privileges. However, later, if the person remains eligible for reinstatement, counsel will request only full reinstatement of driving privileges. A person can attempt to obtain privileges before he or she is eligible for full reinstatement, but these privileges would be limited to work, school or medical treatment. To obtain driving privileges on this basis,the person must show a hardship such as the probability of losing a job, being kicked out of school, or the need for urgent or consistent medical care. Do I need any documents in order to have hearing? The documents that are required for a reinstatement hearing include all the treatment documents from the most recent DUI. This includes DUI Risk Education documentation and proof that treatment and continuing care (if ordered) was completed. The person will also need an updated evaluation because the SOS requires that the evaluation be dated within six months of a hearing date. Along with the new evaluation, a treatments needs and subsequent waiver is required. This will all be provided by the new treatment provider. Additionally, the person seeking privileges will need four letters of Documentation of Abstinence/Character/Substance Use. These forms can be found on the SOS website. If the person is classified as High Risk Dependent (according to the last DUI) then the person will need 3 letters from your support group in addition to the 4 letters of Character. Does the process with SOS cost anything (not including your fees)? The SOS charges $50.00 per hearing. Do I need to show up at hearing? Who else will be present? Yes, the person seeking the reinstatement needs to be present at the hearing to testify. No one else but the Petitioner (the person seeking reinstatement) testifies at the hearing. The SOS is represented by an attorney who will have the opportunity to ask you questions along with the hearing officer. Additionally, if the Petitioner has hired counsel, they will be present at this hearing. What do I need to do to see if and when I can try and get my privileges back? Make an appointment with Attorney Ramon Cervantes and bring a current copy of your Driving Abstract. The consultation is free. Ramon will review your status and discuss reasonable expectations. He will give you an overview of the process and a general timeline, subject to your cooperation in obtaining necessary paperwork. The information above should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal advice. It is intended as general information only and may not reflect laws in your jurisdiction and is not a full explanation, but only a partial summary. A reading of the above does not create an attorney-client relationship. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on a matter on the basis of the above information without seeking appropriate legal or professional advice.

DUI Defense Lawyers in Lake County, Illinois, Serving clients charged with DUI in Libertyville Mundelein Fox lake Lindenhurst Lake Zurich all of NE Illinois & SE Wisconsin. 1. Suppress all evidence based on an unlawful stop of your car by the police 2. Suppress a breathalyzer test based on an arrest without probable cause 3. Attack the sufficiency and reliability of field sobriety testing with reference to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 4. Challenge the use of non-standardized field sobriety tests 5. Exclude a breathalyzer test based on non-compliance with state guidelines. 6. Expose non-compliance with regulatory rules for blood, breath or urine tests. 7. Download hard drive information from breathalyzer machines and expose errors 8. Use expert witness testimony to extrapolate actual blood alcohol content while driving compared to the blood alcohol content at the time of testing 9. Challenge evidence that the driver is in actual physical control of the vehicle 10. Exclude statements obtained in violation of 5th Amendment rights and Miranda 11. Introduce medical or health problems at trial that affect DUI testing 12. Attack the breath test operator’s qualifications 13. Allege and prove a Speedy Trial violation 14. Expose improper administration of breath, blood or urine testing 15. Challenge illegal searches resulting in DUI evidence 16. Exclude evidence based on discovery rule violations 17. Challenge the sufficiency of evidence at trial 18. Introduce evidence of actual innocence at trial 19. Obtain video and audio evidence of the arrest by subpoena 20. Obtain audio dispatch tape by subpoena 21. Suppress all evidence based on an insufficient citizen tip to the police 22. Challenge legality of a roadside safety stop 23. Obtain the arresting officer’s police report for impeachment at trial 24. Exclude from trial a portable breath test administered at the arrest scene 25. Obtain booking room video and audio evidence by subpoena 26. Obtain in-squad video and audio evidence by subpoena 27. Obtain independent eye witness testimony by subpoena 28. Challenge the make and model of the breathalyzer machine used 29. Exclude a breathalyzer test result based on an inadequate observation period 30. Attack the arresting officer’s description of bad driving based on improper interpretation of law 31. Attack the arresting officer’s description of bad driving based on weather conditions 32. Introduce evidence of post-driving absorption of alcohol 33. Introduce innocent explanations at trial for bad driving 34. Introduce evidence of a rising blood alcohol content (BAC was lower when driving than when breathalyzer test is taken) 35. Introduce expert testimony of the inherent rate of error in blood alcohol testing 36. Introduce innocent explanations at trial for a poor performance on field sobriety tests 37. Introduce testimony of the inherent rate of error in field sobriety testing 38. Introduce innocent explanations at trial for signs of being under the influence of alcohol (e.g. red eyes can be caused by fatigue, as well as intoxication) 39. Establish at trial that not all bad driving correlates with being under the influence of alcohol (e.g. speeding without other bad driving is not normally a sign of DUI) 40. Introduce evidence that Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) caused a false breath test result 41. Hire Harter & Schottland to fight your DUI

On September 5, 2017 the Trump administration announced the beginning of the end for the […] The post The End of the DACA Dream appeared first on Harter & Schottland.

As criminal defense attorneys, we often see individuals that are arrested for cannabis related charges.  […] The post Compassionate Use becoming more Compassionate– Illinois Medical Marijuana Updates appeared first on Harter & Schottland.