1. Robbery A person commits robbery when he or she takes property, from the person or presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force. Mens Rea/Mental State Actus Reus/Act –Takes Property and –Uses Force or –Threatens use of force Attendant Circumstances –Person –Presence ©

2. General Intent The intent to do that which the law prohibits. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended the precise harm or the precise result which eventuated. (Black’s Law Dictionary) ©

3. Battery A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual. Mens Rea/Mental State –Intentionally –Knowingly Actus Reus/Act –Causes Harm –Makes physical contact Attendant Circumstances –Without legal justification –Individual –Insulting or provoking nature ©

4. Domestic Battery A person commits domestic battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification by any means: Causes bodily harm to any family or household member or Makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with any family or household member Mens Rea/Mental State –Intentionally or Knowingly Actus Reus –Causes bodily harm or –Makes physical contact Attendnent Circumstances –Without legal; justification –Family member –Household member –Insulting –Provoking ©

5. Aggravated Battery A person who, in committing a battery, intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, or permanent disability or disfigurement commits aggravated battery. Mens Rea/Mental State –Intentionally –Knowingly Actus Reus –Causes Great Bodily Harm Permanent Disability Disfigurement Attendant Circumstances ? ©

6. Aggravated Battery In committing a battery, a person commits aggravated battery if he or she: Uses a deadly weapon other than by the discharge of a firearm; Mens Rea/Mental State Actus Reus Attendant Circumstances ©

7. Aggravated Battery In committing a battery, a person commits aggravated battery if he or she Is, or the person battered is, on or about a public way, public property or public place of accommodation or amusement Mens Rea/Mental State Actus Reus/Act Attendant Circumstances ©

8. Criminal Sexual Assault/CSA The accused commits criminal sexual assault if he or she: commits an act of sexual penetration by the use of force or threat of force Mens Rea/Mental State –General Intent Actus Reus/Act –Act of sexual penatration Attendnant Circumstances –Use of force or threat of force ©

9. "Sexual penetration" means any contact, however slight, between the sex organ or anus of one person by an object, the sex organ, mouth or anus of another person, or any intrusion, however slight, of any part of the body of one person or of any animal or object into the sex organ or anus of another person, including but not limited to cunnilingus, fellatio or anal penetration. Evidence of emission of semen is not required to prove sexual penetration. ©

10. Criminal Sexual Abuse/CSAb The accused commits criminal sexual abuse if he or she commits an act of sexual conduct by the use of force or threat of force Mens Rea/Mental State –General Intent Actus Reus/Act –Act of sexual conduct Attendnant Circumstances –Use of force or threat of force ©

11. "Sexual conduct" means any intentional or knowing touching or fondling by the victim or the accused, either directly or through clothing, of the sex organs, anus or breast of the victim or the accused, or any part of the body of a child under 13 years of age, or any transfer or transmission of semen by the accused upon any part of the clothed or unclothed body of the victim, for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal of the victim or the accused. ©

12. Aggravating Factors Use of a Weapon Age of the Victim –Young or Old Protected Profession –Police Officer –Firefighter/EMT –Other Governmental or Quasi Governmental Employee Public Way Physical Handicap Wearing Hood/Mask Serious Injury Ransom Victim is Pregnant ©

13. Kidnapping Kidnapping occurs when a person knowingly and secretly confines another against his will Mens Rea/Mental State –Knowingly Actus Reus/Act –Confined another against his will Attendant Circumstance –secretly ©

14. Unlawful Restraint A person commits the offense of unlawful restraint when he knowingly without legal authority detains another. Mens Rea/Mental State –Knowingly Actus Reus –Detains Another Attendnant Circumstances –Without legal authority ©

15. Theft A person commits theft when he knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over property of the owner and intends to deprive the owner permanently of the use or benefit of the property. Mens Rea/Mental State –Knowingly Actus Reus –Obtains or exerts control over property Attendant Circumstances –Unauthorised AND Mens Rea/Mental State –Intends Actus Reus –Permanently Deprive Attendant Circumstances –Use or benefit of the property ©

16. Theft Direct Evidence –Offender goes into your pocket of purse and takes your wallet Circumstancal Evidence –Offender is found with your wallet in his/her possession ©

17. Theft Direct Evidence –Offender goes into your car and drives away Circumstancal Evidence –Offender is found driving around in your car ©

18. Retail Theft A person commits the offense of Retail theft when he or she knowingly takes possession of, carries away, transfers or causes to be carried away or transferred, any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale in a retail mercantile establishment with the intention of retaining such merchandise or with the intention of depriving the merchant permanently of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the full retail value of such merchandise. Mens Rea/Mental State –Knowingly Actus Reus –Takes possession of –Carries Away –Transfers Attendant Circumstances –Merchandise Displayed Held Stored Or offered for sale –Retail Mercantile Establishment AND ©

19. Retail Theft A person commits the offense of Retail theft when he or she knowingly takes possession of, carries away, transfers or causes to be carried away or transferred, any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale in a retail mercantile establishment with the intention of retaining such merchandise or with the intention of depriving the merchant permanently of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the full retail value of such merchandise. Mens Rea/Mental State –Intent Actus Reus –Retaining Attendant Circumstances –Such Merchandise OR Mens Rea/Mental State –Intent Actus Reus/The Act –Permanently Depriving Possession Use Benefit Attendant Circumstances –Merchandise –Full Retail Value ©

20. Retail Theft Direct Evidence –Security observes a customer remove an item from the store, place it under his or her coat any exit the store. Circumstantial Evidence –Security observes a customer handling a watch and later observes on a recording of the security camera the customer make a move that could be construed as placing the watch up his sleeve. An inventory reveals a watch missing. ©

21. Arson A person commits arson when, by means of fire or explosive, he knowingly damages any real property, or any personal property having a value of $150 or more, of another without his consent or with intent to defraud an insurer, damages any property or any personal property having a value of $150 or more. Mens Rea/Mental State –Knowingly Actus Reus/Act –Damages Property Attendant Circumstances –Fire or Explosion –Real or Personal Property –Of Another –Without consent of Owner –Valued of $150 or more OR ©

22. Arson A person commits arson when, by means of fire or explosive, he knowingly damages any real property, or any personal property having a value of $150 or more, of another without his consent or with intent to defraud an insurer, damages any property or any personal property having a value of $150 or more. Mens Rea/Mental State –Intent to Defraud an Insurer Actus Reus/Act –Damages Property Attendant Circumstances –Fire or Explosion –Real or Personal Property –Of Another –Valued of $150 or more ©

23. Arson Direct Evidence –Subject is observed throwing a Molotov Cocktail through the front window of a neighbor’s home Indirect Evidence –The neighbor is observed walking into the house next door with two five gallon containers of gasoline. The neighbor walks out several minutes later without the containers. Thirty minutes later the house is fully engaged in flames. ©

24. Burglary A person commits burglary when without authority he knowingly enters or without authority remains within a building, housetrailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle as defined in the Illinois Vehicle Code, railroad car, or any part thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft. This offense shall not include the offenses set out in Section 4 ‑ 102 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. Mens Rea/Mental State –Knowingly Actus Reus –Enters or Remains Within Attendant Circumstances –Intent to Commit a theft or felony therein –Building, housetrailer,watercraft, aircraft, motor vehcile, or railroad car ©

25. Burglary Direct Evidence –As you drive your new squad car down the street you observed the subject on the front porch yell, “I’m going to kick in this door and enter this premise to commit a theft or other felony therein.” Circumstantial Evidence –Everything else ©

26. Inchoate Offenses Solicitation Conspiracy Attempt ©

27. Inchoate Offenses Anticipatory, incipient, incomplete, and preliminary crimes are all other words for inchoate crimes, acts that imply an inclination to commit a crime even though the crime is never completed. The word "inchoate" means underdeveloped or unripened. Because of the social need to prevent crimes before they occur, the common law long ago established three (3) separate and distinct categories of inchoate crimes -- the crimes of attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation. Over the years, there have not been any new categories added with the possible exception of possession (as in possession of burglar tools, bomb materials, gun arsenal, etc.) as an inchoate offense based on the notion of preparation, which has not normally been associated with inchoate crimes. ©

28. Inchoate Offenses Traditionally, inchoate crimes have always been considered misdemeanors, but over the years they have been merged into felonies as society has put more power in the hands of law enforcement and prosecutors to deal with recalcitrant problems such as organized crime, white collar crime, and drug crime. Traditional rules that exist are: (1) a person should not be charged with both the inchoate and choate offense, with the exception of conspiracy which can be a separate charge; (2) lesser penalties should ideally be imposed for inchoate crimes, but in many cases, the penalty should be exactly the same as for the completed offense; (3) inchoate crimes should have specific intent, spelling out clearly what the mens rea elements are; and (4) some overt action or substantial step should be required in the direction of completing the crime. This set of rules is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of inchoate crimes. ©

29. Inchoate Offenses Solicitation – Solicitation is best thought of as a substantive crime in itself, remote from being thought of as an attempt at a substantive crime. Solicitation occurs when the solicitation is made. Another way of saying this is that the crime of solicitation is over with the asking. The crime of solicitation is inherently incomplete (inchoate) because the law doesn't even care if the solicitation was influential or not. It also doesn't matter if it's a crowd or an individual being solicited, and it's even possible to perpetrate solicitation through an intermediary. What does matter is the thing being solicited -- the crime of solicitation should be restricted to certain serious felonies. At common law, these would be crimes that breach the peace or obstruct justice. ©

30. Inchoate Offenses Solicitation Solicitation (specifically the actus reus of it) consists of words; words that create an inducement, defined as advising, commanding, counseling, encouraging, enticing, entreating, importunes, incites, induces, instigates, orders, procures, requests, solicits, or urges another to commit a serious felony with the specific intent that the person solicited commit the crime. This list is sometimes called the list of proper utterances for the crime of solicitation. ©

31. Inchoate Offenses Solicitation –The elements of solicitation include: –(1) mens rea -- not intent to commit a crime, but specific intent to persuade someone else to commit a crime; also not joking around or making casual comments ("I wish that person would drop dead") but "purposely" wanting to persuade someone. –(2) actus reus -- words that contain some sort of inducement; words that are on the list of proper utterances for the crime of solicitation; uttering the words is the actus reus, and it doesn't matter if the means of utterance is oral, written, or electronic. –Defenses: Impossibility of any type is the same as no defense. Some jurisdictions allow withdrawal or renunciation ©

32. 720 ILCS 5/8 ‑ 1) (from Ch. 38, par. 8 ‑ 1) Sec. 8 ‑ 1. Solicitation. (a) Elements of the offense. A person commits solicitation when, with intent that an offense be committed, other than first degree murder, he commands, encourages or requests another to commit that offense. ©

33. Inchoate Offenses Conspiracy The essence of conspiracy is an agreement. It doesn't have to be a written one. Usually, it's inferred from the facts or circumstances. What the agreement has to be about doesn't even have to be criminal, only "unlawful". Under some statutes, a conspiracy can involve any act injurious to public health, public morals, free commerce, or any act perverting justice. Because a conspiracy by itself is almost treated as a substantive crime in itself, this is the only inchoate offense that the law permits a person to be charged with in addition to the target crime (that is, a person can be charged with both murder and conspiracy to commit murder, e.g.). ©

34. Inchoate Offenses Conspiracy Conspiracy is the favorite tool of prosecutors. There's a lot of presumptions and procedural rules that favor the prosecution. It's easy to get a conviction for conspiracy because, basically, all the prosecutor has to do is present all the evidence and let the judge tell the jury what test will be used to determine whether an agreement existed. In most jurisdictions, proof of the agreement is sufficient; no further (overt) act is required. In jurisdictions requiring an overt act, the standard is not as high as the law of attempt, and is basically proven by showing at least one of the conspirators had at least the intent to commit a substantive offense. Conspiracy is still a specific intent crime, so "purposively" must be used, not just knowledge, although there's a whole string of inconsistent case law that indicates erosion in this area. ©

35. Inchoate Offenses CONSPIRACY The elements of conspiracy include: (1) mens rea -- a specific intent to attain a particular criminal objective on the part of at least one person in the partnership. Purpose can be inferred from circumstances surrounding the combination, such as failure to keep records, clandestine meetings, quantities involved, continuity of the relationship, etc. There are different rules used by different jurisdictions on the kinds of relationships that qualify: unilateral rule -- the idea that among a group of conspirators, there is at least one individual with criminal intent bilateral rule -- the idea that one cannot conspire alone; at least two guilty persons are required ©

36. Inchoate Offenses CONSPIRACY –Defenses and Other Issues: The defenses of impossibility and abandonment are of no use in conspiracy law as they are considered the same as no defense. However, some jurisdictions will permit abandonment, but the standard is high, the defendant has to show their complete and total withdrawal by notifying the authorities about their own involvement and taking steps to thwart the conspiracy. Conspiracy doesn't recognize anything sacrosanct about the husband-wife relationship, and a corporation can also be charged as a person with conspiracy if more than one corporation is involved. ©

37. Inchoate Offenses CONSPIRACY –(720 ILCS 5/8 ‑ 2) (from Ch. 38, par. 8 ‑ 2) Sec. 8 ‑ 2. Conspiracy. (a) Elements of the offense. A person commits conspiracy when, with intent that an offense be committed, he agrees with another to the commission of that offense. No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit an offense unless an act in furtherance of such agreement is alleged and proved to have been committed by him or by a co ‑ conspirator. (b) Co ‑ conspirators. It shall not be a defense to conspiracy that the person or persons with whom the accused is alleged to have conspired: (1) Has not been prosecuted or convicted, or (2) Has been convicted of a different offense, or (3) Is not amenable to justice, or (4) Has been acquitted, or (5) Lacked the capacity to commit an offense. ©

38. Inchoate Offenses Attempt –Criminal attempt, in many ways, is all about failure (not being a very good criminal), for example, shooting at somebody and missing, holding up a cash register to only find $5, stealing a CD by taking it out of its case, stuffing it down your pants, and having it break in half before you get out of the store (the law includes strokes of luck in its conception of failure). The law of attempt is also about nipping violence in the bud, so even certain words ("threats", "challenges") qualify as attempts. There's no such thing as a crime called "attempt". Most states allow the prosecutor to pick what the crime is that's being attempted; that is, most states do not try to define attempted murder, attempted robbery, attempted rape, and so forth. Most states typically have a general attempt statute that specifies a punishment (usually the same as for the completed offense) and allows the word "attempted" to be placed before the target crime. ©

39. Inchoate Offenses Attempt –The elements of attempt include: –(1) specific intent -- this means that "purposely" is the only mens rea that qualifies. All inchoate crimes are specific intent crimes, and all specific intent crimes do not allow such states of mind as reckless, negligent, or strict liability. –(2) an overt act toward commission -- this is intended to weed out the plotters from the perpetrators, but the standards vary widely by jurisdiction. Acts of preparation do not count. Some places use fairly loose language like "some steps" while other places use the more rigorous "all but last act" standard. There are at least four tests used in various places: –physical proximity doctrine -- this focuses upon space and time, establishes the "last act" standard which requires looking at the remaining steps –probable desistance approach -- this considers whether the attempt would naturally lead to commission but for some timely interference not related to bad luck –equivocality approach -- this looks at whether the attempt can have no other purpose than commission of a crime –substantial steps test -- this is a MPC-recommended approach which looks for corroborating evidence in the form of conduct which tends to concur or verify a criminal purpose ©

40. Inchoate Offenses Attempt –(3) failure to consummate the crime -- the law looks at the reasons why the crime failed, and in some cases, the reason mitigates the punishment or removes the liability, as in: –legal impossibility -- a defense that what was attempted is not a crime (raping a mannequin, for example, because rape requires a human victim) Prosecutors have the burden of proving legal possibility as well as apparent ability –factual impossibility -- a defense that some extraneous factor or outside force made it impossible to complete the crime; most jurisdictions will not accept this on the presumption that "luck" doesn't count (same as no defense) –renunciation -- this is the idea of abandonment, and to be a successful defense, the actor must have given up for moral reasons, not just because of the risk of apprehension ©

41. Inchoate Offenses Attempt –(720 ILCS 5/8 ‑ 4) (from Ch. 38, par. 8 ‑ 4) Sec. 8 ‑ 4. Attempt. (a) Elements of the Offense. A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific offense, he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense. (b) Impossibility. It shall not be a defense to a charge of attempt that because of a misapprehension of the circumstances it would have been impossible for the accused to commit the offense attempted. ©

42. Parties to a Crime An accomplice is someone who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common interest, participates in the commission of a crime, and can be charged with the same crime(s) for which the accused will be tried; complicity means association in a wrongful act; principal means anyone involved in committing a crime; an accessory before the fact aids, incites, or abets but is not physically present; an accessory after the fact receives, comforts, relieves, or assists a felon to avoid apprehension and conviction. ©

43. Parties to a Crime In accomplice law (complicity), the statutory law has evolved much beyond the common law, and the case law is extensive and confusing about exactly where the lines are drawn. Complicity is a concept that can be abused by prosecutors. Only a few basic restrictions exist: (1) the law does not recognize accomplices to any misdemeanor or the crime of treason; (2) an accomplice must normally be physically present during commission of the crime, but advice or words of encouragement beforehand as well as providing material assistance afterwards will create a liability; (3) no one can be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice alone; and (4) persons giving postcrime aid are punished less severely than those furnishing precrime aid. ©

44. Parties to a Crime Being an accomplice is NOT the same as: accessory after the fact -- this remains, in some jurisdictions, a separate and less serious offense for giving aid and comfort (harboring) to a fugitive. The law sees it as a separate offense because it's really helping someone avoid arrest or escape punishment more than helping someone commit a crime. Accessories always have a claim to less punishment. conspiracy -- conspiracy is a completely different crime; according to the Pinkerton rule, a person can be charged with both conspiracy to commit a crime and the crime itself under the law of accomplices (Example: two people agree to commit murder, and one acts as a lookout while the other kills somebody; both can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder and murder itself). facilitation or solicitation -- these are separate offenses, related to the ideas, respectively, of making it easier for someone to commit a crime and enticing someone to commit a crime that never occurs (Examples: aiding a juvenile who is used in crime to limit someone's exposure to prosecution; soliciting a prostitute; of the two, facilitation is closest to accomplice law). ©

45. There are three (3) elements to accomplice liability: (1) proof that someone committed the underlying crime -- it is not necessary, however, for the government to have tried and convicted somebody, or even that the principal is identified; proof in this sense means probable cause that a crime was committed. (2) actus reus -- accomplice law eases the requirement of proving actus reus, but it does so with hard-to-define words. Words such as "aid", "abet", "assist", "counsel", "induce" or "incite" may have different meanings depending upon what jurisdiction you're in. Normally, you can't be considered as an accomplice simply for being there -- you must be constructively present -- this is known as the Mere Presence rule, but there are exceptions in places with Good Samaritan laws where you can be tried as an accomplice for just standing there and watching someone get beaten, e.g. ©

46. Case law has ruled the following are examples of accomplice actus reus : -acting as a lookout -providing guns, supplies, or instruments of crime (even under color of financial transaction if seller is aware of purpose) -driving a getaway vehicle -sending the victim to the principal -preventing warnings from reaching the victim (but not merely failing to disclose the occurrence of a crime to authorities) mens rea -- this is the element that it all boils down to in obtaining a conviction for being an accomplice. All the words used in accomplice law ("abet" for example) carry an implication of purposive attitude toward the crime. Other courts have held to a less strict standard than "purposively" (even thought the MPC recommends this only) such as "knowingly" but still other courts have allowed "recklessly". ©

47. Case law has ruled the following are examples of accomplice mens rea: an intent that the crime be committed; an affirmative desire to see it done knowledge that they are contributing to the commission of a crime, knowing that the outcome would have a dangerous result or criminal consequences recklessness and negligence under such circumstances as to indirectly benefit or share in the financial proceeds of the crime; a "stake" in the outcome ©

48. There are three (3) ways to offer a defense to the crime of being an accomplice: (1) Mistake of fact -- this is not the same as "I didn't know it was a crime" (mistake of law) but a mistake of fact good faith claim because of the way a person perceives the world and makes reasoned judgments (2) Abandonment -- the complicity was abandoned in a timely manner; the accomplice terminated their participation either completely or in part such as to deprive the principal of effectiveness at committing the crime; "I didn't help so they could get caught and learn their lesson" (3) Withdrawal -- the complicity was repudiated voluntarily (not merely because of a fear of getting caught); "I didn't help because it was wrong"; some attempts are made to neutralize or thwart the crime such as by notifying authorities ©

49. Defenses to a Criminal Charge (720 ILCS 5/3 ‑ 2) (from Ch. 38, par. 3 ‑ 2) Sec. 3 ‑ 2. Affirmative defense. (a) "Affirmative defense" means that unless the State's evidence raises the issue involving the alleged defense, the defendant, to raise the issue, must present some evidence thereon. (b) If the issue involved in an affirmative defense, other than insanity, is raised then the State must sustain the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to that issue together with all the other elements of the offense. If the affirmative defense of insanity is raised, the defendant bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence his insanity at the time of the offense. (Source: P.A. 89 ‑ 404, eff. 8 ‑ 20 ‑ 95; 90 ‑ 593, eff. 6 ‑ 19 ‑ 98.) ©

50. Defenses to a Crime Infancy + < 13 th Birthday Insanity – Def must prove by clear and convincing evidence Intoxication – Involuntary and incapable of forming mental state Compulsion Entrapment Necessity ©

51. (720 ILCS 5/26 ‑ 1) (from Ch. 38, par. 26 ‑ 1) (Text of Section from P.A. 96 ‑ 339) Sec. 26 ‑ 1. Elements of the Offense. (a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly: (1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace or Communicating a false alarm or non-existent call. Peeping Toming ©

52. Disorderly Conduct A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace Mens Rea/Mental State –Knowingly Actus Reus –Any Act Attendent Circumstances –Unreasonable Manner as to Alarm or Disturb –Provoke a Breach of the Peace

53. (720 ILCS 5/12 ‑ 5) (from Ch. 38, par. 12 ‑ 5) Sec. 12 ‑ 5. Reckless conduct. (a) A person who causes bodily harm to or endangers the bodily safety of an individual by any means, commits reckless conduct if he or she performs recklessly the acts that cause the harm or endanger safety, whether they otherwise are lawful or unlawful. (a ‑ 5) A person who causes great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement by any means, commits reckless conduct if he or she performs recklessly the acts that cause the harm, whether they otherwise are lawful or unlawful. (b) Sentence. Reckless conduct under subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. Reckless conduct under subsection (a ‑ 5) is a Class 4 felony. ©

54. Reckless Conduct A person who causes bodily harm to or endangers the bodily safety of an individual by any means, commits reckless conduct if he or she performs recklessly the acts that cause the harm or endanger safety, whether they otherwise are lawful or unlawful. Mens Rea/Mental State –Recklessness Actus Reus/Act –Causes Bodily Harm –Endangers Bodily Safety of an individual Attendant Circumstances

55. (720 ILCS 5/25 ‑ 1) (from Ch. 38, par. 25 ‑ 1) Sec. 25 ‑ 1. Mob action. (a) A person commits the offense of mob action when he or she engages in any of the following: (1) the knowing or reckless use of force or violence disturbing the public peace by 2 or more persons acting together and without authority of law; (2) the knowing assembly of 2 or more persons with the intent to commit or facilitate the commission of a felony or misdemeanor; or (3) the knowing assembly of 2 or more persons, without authority of law, for the purpose of doing violence to the person or property of anyone supposed to have been guilty of a violation of the law, or for the purpose of exercising correctional powers or regulative powers over any person by violence. ©

56. Drugs

57. Drug Arrests 81.7% of Drug Abuse Arrests are for Possession 19.3% for Sale or Manufacture 39.2% for Marijuana 22% for Cocaine of Heroin 68.5% of Jail Inmates report Substance Dependence or Abuse 31.5% are not telling the truth about their Substance Dependence or Abuse

58. $12.5 Billion was Budgeted by the Federal Government to Control Drugs in 2006

59. Marijuana Arrests For Year 2006 89% of 2006 Marijuana Arrests were for possession. TEENS SAY BUYING DOPE IS EASY

60. (720 ILCS 550/4) (from Ch. 56 1/2, par. 704) Sec. 4. It is unlawful for any person knowingly to possess cannabis. Any person who violates this section with respect to: (a) not more than 2.5 grams of any substance containing cannabis is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor; (b) more than 2.5 grams but not more than 10 grams of any substance containing cannabis is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor; (c) more than 10 grams but not more than 30 grams of any substance containing cannabis is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor

61. Possession of Cannabis It is unlawful for any person knowingly to possess cannabis Mens Rea/Mental State –Knowingly Actus Reus/Act –Possess Cannabis

62. Possession of Cannabis Direct Evidence –You observe a subject walking down the street smoking a hand rolled cigarette and as he approaches you smell it to be the smell of marijuana. Circumstantial Evidence –You stop a motor vehicle for a traffic violation and place the driver under arrest for a warrant. During the course of a search of the vehicle you find a clear plastic bag containing crushed green plant like material which you suspect to be cannabis.

63. DUI (a) A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this State while: (1) the alcohol concentration in the person's blood or breath is 0.08 or more based on the definition of blood and breath units in Section 11 ‑ 501.2; (2) under the influence of alcohol Mens Rea/Mental State –No mental state required Actus Reus/Act –Driving –Physical Control Attendant Circumstances –BAC.08 or greater –Under the Influence of alcohol –Of Any Vehicle

64. (720 ILCS 570/402) (from Ch. 56 1/2, par. 1402) (Text of Section from P.A. 94 ‑ 324) Sec. 402. Except as otherwise authorized by this Act, it is unlawful for any person knowingly to possess a controlled or counterfeit substance or controlled substance analog.