Delivery and Manufacturing of a Controlled Substance

    (720 ILCS 570/401) (from Ch. 56 1/2, par. 1401)
    (Text of Section before amendment by P.A. 100-368)
    Sec. 401. Manufacture or delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance, a counterfeit substance, or controlled substance analog. Except as authorized by this Act, it is unlawful for any person knowingly to manufacture or deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance other than methamphetamine and other than bath salts as defined in the Bath Salts Prohibition Act sold or offered for sale in a retail mercantile establishment as defined in Section 16-0.1 of the Criminal Code of 2012, a counterfeit substance, or a controlled substance analog. A violation of this Act with respect to each of the controlled substances listed herein constitutes a single and separate violation of this Act. For purposes of this Section, “controlled substance analog” or “analog” means a substance, other than a controlled substance, that has a chemical structure substantially similar to that of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II, or that was specifically designed to produce an effect substantially similar to that of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II. Examples of chemical classes in which controlled substance analogs are found include, but are not limited to, the following: phenethylamines, N-substituted piperidines, morphinans, ecgonines, quinazolinones, substituted indoles, and arylcycloalkylamines. For purposes of this Act, a controlled substance analog shall be treated in the same manner as the controlled substance to which it is substantially similar.

    I have represented countless individuals charged with manufacturing or delivery of a controlled substance. For those charged with this offense the State of Illinois is alleging that the accused, the defendant, either manufactured a controlled substance or sold a controlled substance. The majority of these cases are brought to court after the police witness a person in an exchange they believe involves a drug deal. Most of the time, the police witness a drug deal because they are undercover acting as a person looking to buy drugs. Usually, the way this is done is that the police put together a team. The team is broken up into three sections. The sections are observation officers, buy officers and enforcement or “take down” officers. The observation officers usually set themselves up in one spot. They usually have binoculars. They set up surveillance on a person they suspect is selling drugs. The buy officer is an officer who is working undercover. He will put on a disguise and look exactly like any other person who wants to buy drugs, generally heroin or cocaine. The buy officer is usually in a car and and they will pull up to the suspect and have a conversation. The buy officer’s think they are very slick. They are equipped with a whole arsenal of slogans that they believe mean they are looking for drugs. For example, in one case the officer approached my clients and asked for “blows.”  “Blows” is a street term for heroin. The buy officer will also have cash on them called prerecorded 505 funds. The 505 funds is money where the serial number on the bills has been written down. The purpose of this is to help identify the person who sold the drugs. When a person is arrested and the 505 funds are on them, the State’s Attorney will use that information to argue that they are the same person who sold the drugs. Next, the undercover officer will exit his car and then buy the drugs from the suspect. Generally, after that the transaction, the officer will get back in their car, leave the area and then call the observation officer to say that they just bought drugs from the suspect. After that, the observation officer with call to the take down or enforcement officers, give them a description of the suspect and the direction the suspect is headed. Then the enforcement officers will locate the person they believe is the suspect and arrest them. Finally, the buy officer will be required to identify the person in police custody at the person who sold them the controlled substance.

    In one case, I represented a young man who was accused of selling drugs to an undercover buy officer. The evidence did not look good for him. He was arrested yards from where the drugs were sold, he basically matched the description given by the observation officer and worse he was identified by the undercover buy officer. When I spoke to my client he explained to me that on that day he was arrested he had been inside with his mother all day. He explained to me that he was told to go throw out the trash in the alley behind his house. That when he went to throw out the trash and two police officers arrested him. The State’s Attorney explained that my client was on a street corner about an hour earlier and that he sold four bags of drugs to a buy officer. The used the testimony of three police officers to prove their case. The State had the officers testify that the man who sold the drugs was African-American, about 20 years old, had dreadlocks, and was wearing a red shirt with jeans on. They also had the buy officer testify that my client was the guy. That he recognizes him not only in court on the day of trial but on the day of the drug deal he identified him while in police custody. I then got my opportunity to cross exam the officers.  I forced the officer to explain that after the transaction they lost sight of the man who sold the drugs and that they did not see anyone who looked like the suspect for an hour. Further, I forced the police to explain that when my client was arrested he was wearing a red shirt and shorts and not jeans. I also forced them to explain that the prerecord 505 funds were not on the man arrested and further more I elicited testimony from the buy officer that when he identified the man who he believed sold him drugs he was the only person in police custody and that he drove by without stopping his car. I argued to the Judge that the officer’s identification was faulty. That it is not probable that a person can 100% identify a person without stopping their car and getting out and that further more this man was in handcuffs surrounded by police officers. Anyone looks like they are guilty if they are in handcuffs. I further argued that the only thing my client was guilty of was having dreadlocks and wearing a red shirt. The judge agreed and found my client not guilty.