Court-ordered search leads to drug charges

Court-ordered search leads to drug charges

URBANA — A Champaign man has been charged with two Class X felony drug counts after police found suspected Ecstasy and cocaine in his apartment.

A University of Illinois police report said James F. Hall, 25, who listed an address in the 100 block of East John Street, was arrested late Thursday night after a court-authorized search by UI police of his apartment turned up about 25 bags of powder cocaine and 25 Ecstasy capsules.

They also found $5,190 cash, which included pre-marked money that police had given to confidential sources in the past with which to buy drugs, the report said.

The charges, unlawful possession with intent to deliver Ecstasy and unlawful possession with intent to deliver cocaine, are Class X felonies because Hall's apartment is within 1,000 feet of Washington Park.

If convicted of the charges, Hall faces six to 30 years in prison.

Judge John Kennedy set his bond at $50,000 and ordered him to be back in court Dec. 10.

Sections (2):News, Local

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
alabaster jones 71 wrote on November 08, 2013 at 7:11 pm
Profile Picture

"The charges, unlawful possession with intent to deliver Ecstasy and unlawful possession with intent to deliver cocaine, are Class X felonies because Hall's apartment is within 1,000 feet of Washington Park."


Lol.  Is that what they call those two basketball hoops and a picnic table?  Can anyone explain to me why this makes one iota of difference?  Just another dirty trick from the corrupt criminal justice system.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 08, 2013 at 7:11 pm

The poor drug dealer....  He can no longer create addictions while making a profit.  It is a conspiracy by the criminal justice system according to some.  alabaster is right. The park should have nothing to do with it.  It should just come down to the possession of the many bags of cocaine, and the marked bills used in buying the addictive drugs.  This was not marijuana, or other recreational drugs being offerred at cost to friends.  It was the sale of drugs for profit.  Oh... the poor, abused drug dealer.....  When will society see the injustice it does toward criminals?

What is next?  A howl against child molesters, and rapists being arrested because they were ill when they committed their crimes? 

alabaster jones 71 wrote on November 08, 2013 at 11:11 pm
Profile Picture

A truly asinine comparison, since molestation and rape are crimes with actual victims.  Actual, forced, unconsenting victims.  Nobody forced anyone to become addicted to cocaine.  It's a personal choice that one should be able to make, no matter how stupid it is.

Local Yocal wrote on November 09, 2013 at 5:11 am
Profile Picture  Dan Baum, 1996, Smoke and Mirrors  Michelle Alexander, 2011, The New Jim Crow


Sid Saltfork wrote on November 09, 2013 at 8:11 am

What an absurd defense of a drug dealer.  "No one forced" someone to buy an illegal substance that leads to addiction.  This was not some guy using for his recreational past time.  This was not someone holding for his own use.  This was a dealer who was intent on making a profit off of others addictions.

Both of you will go to any lengths to blame the rest of society instead of the criminals.  At times, you both make some sense on other topics; but you blow it on hugging a criminal.  Yeah, youtube is your source.  Why not volunteer to help with assisting felons in getting a job?   Oh no; it is so much easier to quote instead of assisting.  Have you ever tried to assist a felon who was busted for drugs get a job? I have done it.  Employers are very reluctant to hire anyone with a theft, or drug conviction.  Wonder why?  Of course, you two blame the employers, police, and the courts instead of the dealer who is in it for an illegal profit.  Keep on tilting windmills instead of doing something constructive.

You can have the last word.  Realize that your talking to yourselves.  The rest of the citizenry are happy that one less drug dealer is on the streets.

DaPaign217 wrote on November 09, 2013 at 8:11 pm

Da class x charges won't stick.. Da states attorney is a joke.. Dis guy most likely finna snitch lik majority a dem does.

Local Yocal wrote on November 09, 2013 at 10:11 pm
Profile Picture

"...making a profit off of other people's addictions."

Yep. That's what they are doing. And why is that a crime? Why does that disqualify them from public housing, a job, schooling, the right to vote (not in Illinois), why must we afford the expense of their apprehension, prosecution, and imprisonment for all those decades? Why must their children go without a parent?

We don't jail those making a profit off of people's addictions to the most dangerous drugs.....that kill more people than all schedule 1 drugs combined.

Would you throw your principle against the tobacco executives who are responsible for selling to addicts who choose their product to kill themselves at a rate of 500,000 to 800,000 a year?

Would you throw your principle against the fast food industry, who sell to their addicted customers now dying at a rate of 350,000 a year from obesity?

Would you throw your principle at the alcohol industry where traffic fatalities are at about 14,000, 80% of sexual assaults and aggravated batteries are alcohol related? Or was a discovery made a while back about the effects of prohibition?:

Helping felons recover from this drug war is made tougher because of the ignorance and hypocrisy of a populace fed propoganda by police publicity departments working job security through The News-Gazette. Fortunately, sanity is beginning to take root:

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 11, 2013 at 12:11 pm

They are not excluded from a job.  They compete for employment like everyone else.  They are not excluded from schooling unless they are using a federal grant, and financial aid seldom checks on that.  They do have health insurance provided recently via Medicaid.  Should the felon be offerred more services than a non-felon?  Criminals are assumed to be poor, and of a minority race; but we know that they are from all levels, and races of society.  Do the poor get less of a legal defense?  Yes, they do because they cannot afford the private attorney versus a Public Defender.  Are more poor felons doing time than rich felons?  Yes.

The justice system is overwhelmed.  The prisons are packed.  Felons are being released early under programs; but there are not enough parole officers, mental health professionals, and substance abuse professionals to monitor, and serve them.  People can complain about the system; but the fact remains that the criminal committed a crime regardless of their background, addictions, mental health, or motivation.  They made a choice.  Now, should they be exempted from justice?  Should they receive more services in health, education, housing, and employment than the non-felon?

People need to be held responsible for their actions.  It is as simple as "Thou shall not steal".  There are more people who have not committed crimes than those who have committed crimes.  There are more families who do not have members in prison than those who have members in prison.  Maybe, something still works in society?   

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 11, 2013 at 12:11 pm

As soon as the tobacco, fast food, and alcohol manufacturers' products are found illegal; the manufacturers should be prosecuted for their crimes if they still engage in an illegal sale of banned substances that lead to addiction, and crime.  It would cut the medical costs incurred by insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare.  Luckys, Twinkies, and Bud are not healthy, and are addictive.  Add them to the list of other addictive substances like cocaine, heroin, and meth.  The pushers of illegal, addictive substances need to be responsible for the financial damage they have done to society.

Local Yocal wrote on November 11, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Profile Picture

"Luckys, Twinkies, and Bud are not healthy, and are addictive.  Add them to the list of other addictive substances like cocaine, heroin, and meth."

So.....since Lucky Strikes tobacco cigarettes, Twinkie snack cakes, and Budweiser beer kill far, far more people per year than do cocaine, heroin, and meth; Luckys, Twinkies, and Bud should be made illegal, right? and we should jail all who manufacture and sell same, right?

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 11, 2013 at 7:11 pm

Sure.  The legislation needs to be enacted.  Following that, the continuance of selling a harmful product should result in arrest and conviction. 

Atomic bombs, nerve gas, and biological weapons are owned by countries.  They should be banned; but there is still no excuse for having an illegal gun.  Simply because examples exist of substances that should be banned, and are harmful; it does not excuse what is already banned, and harmful.  Defending the sale for profit of cocaine does not equate to ignoring the crime because other crimes exist, and are not being punished.

Bulldogmojo wrote on November 11, 2013 at 12:11 pm

In related news "Pain Management" physicians are taking home the bank in their BMW convertibles causing actual life long debilitating addiction...

Local Yocal wrote on November 11, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Profile Picture

But, but, but.... if we outlaw prescription drugs, wouldn't that jail upper middle class doctors? That's the wrong target population.....

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander, 2010

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 11, 2013 at 8:11 pm

There is diversity in prison.  There is no "target population".  There is no conspiracy to target some, and not others.  Yes, there is inequality based on money in securing a good legal defense; but there is diversity among those who have the money also.  The police are not our enemies.  The poor get less justice than the rich.  Criminals come in all types.  Cocaine dealers make money off of others addictions.  Instead of defending the dealer, why not show concern for his customers?  He is going to rat on his supplier anyway for a lesser deal.

Of course, you can read or watch whatever you feel justifies your position rather than see life first hand.  That applies to everything controversial now; politics, conspiracies, and causes.  

Local Yocal wrote on November 12, 2013 at 6:11 am
Profile Picture

" can read or watch whatever you feel justifies your position rather than see life first hand."

Those who have studied life first hand, produce books, websites, and films that refute the common sense of position of "they broke the law."

Would you reject these people's first-hand experience?:

All accounts are that the "drug kingpin" has gone unscathed by this drug war for when law enforcement do capture one of these kingpins, they reverse the laws to snitch on 50 low level dealers to escape prosecution themselves. The drug war primarily prosecutes poor African Americans. Mandatory minimum sentencing upends any type of defense at the federal level, and it's the choice of the police and prosecutors determining what the charge will be, what sentence will be recommended at the state trial-court level. This plays out every week at our courthouse. You should go some time; you know, for that first hand experience.  

At least you are consistent, you would expand the drug war to include cigarettes, junk food, and alcohol, and thus probably triple the incarceration rate from 2.3 million to about 6 million. But how much in taxes do you want to pay? And is this what you want your government doing, patrolling what citizens put in their mouths? Cigarettes illegal? Re-institute alcohol's illegality? The 'ol 16 oz. soda pop, illegal?

I vote not one government dime be spent on an unrepentant addict. No wasting officer time on chasing them down; no wasting the prosecutor's time, the court's time clogging the docket call with their prosecution; and certainly no jailing a single unrepentant addict. Ongoing addicts, like smokers and drinkers and overeaters, can do what they do, and go off the cliff with the pigs if they so choose. Why do our taxes have to go toward their incarceration at $50-a-day in jail, $30,000-a-year in prison? The problems you cite due to overcrowding are caused by this drug war. It's The Nanny Goverment-types who want to keep this drug war going for their job security, and tax-and-spend, bigger, bigger government philosophies.

And the most twisted joke of all is that not one of our correctional facilities is drug-free. You can get drugs inside the prison.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 12, 2013 at 9:11 am

"Those who have studied life first hand" is not the same as those who "see" life first hand.   Yep, just what I thought.   Another wantabee "expert" who has read about life, watched videos, and visited websites rather than actually lived in the environment that they preach about.  Take a walk on the wild side, and than come back.  It will make you more creditable.  

Oh... I forgot that you indicated that you were an attorney in previous comments.  Well, that must make you an "expert"... ;)   

Local Yocal wrote on November 12, 2013 at 11:11 am
Profile Picture

Just what I thought, always gets personal when the debate of the issues becomes too much.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 12, 2013 at 12:11 pm

That is hypocritical.  You accuse people of being racist because they disagree with you.  You make erroneous statements regarding your critics when your in a corner with your rants, and raves.  Why don't you read your comments toward others before crying.  You do not debate.  You dictate your views; and accuse those who disagree with you of all kinds of nasty things including racism.  Better buy a new mirror.  One that verbally flatters you.    

The article is about a drug dealer who got caught.  Your extended, rambling defense of him is more about you.  A drug dealer who made a financial profit off of others addiction got caught.  I, for one, want to thank the police for getting him off of the streets.

Oh... you can quote me as you always do.  Just get it accurate.  You can have the last word also.  Just keep it to the point regarding a local drug dealer who was busted for making a profit by selling cocaine.   

Local Yocal wrote on November 12, 2013 at 9:11 pm
Profile Picture

No, I accuse the criminal justice system of having a racial bias, and that is proven from every study ever done.

The topic is not defense of a drug dealer. The topic is whether the drug cocaine should be illegal and whether those that sell it to willing customers should be made to go to jail. I say cocaine should not be made illegal and those that sell it should be left alone as should the buyers. Drug addiction, drug abuse, and drug overdose has its punishments built in.

Whether Sid Saltfork is a racist, I have no idea, but his enthusiasm for this drug war is unusual because he seems so able to see through hypocrisy and corruption in so many other areas.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 13, 2013 at 1:11 pm

Yocal;  Maybe, you need your memory refreshened. 

News Gazette: "Man found not guilty by reason of insanity", Sun., 11/03/2013  Comments: #12, #22, #23, and #24.

You have no problem alleging racism; but now you "have no idea" about it.  It is reminiscent of "Answer yes, or no. Do you still beat your dog!"  I can see that you have encouraged others to do the same.

You, and I, disagree about leaving cocaine dealers alone.  I have seen first hand the "punishments built in" to cocaine use.  It is a great high for a brief period of time.  It does not last long.  It requires more to maintain the high.  It is expensive also.  I have seen relationships dissolve.  Personalities change, and sudden deaths by heart attacks.  I do have a personal view of cocaine dealers, and those who defend them.  

In regard to the topic of whether the criminal justice system has a racial bias; there are law enforcement officers of all races.  There are juries of all races.  I will agree that the Poor, not race, does not get an adequate defense with a Public Defender.  I may feel that a "user" should not be given a heavy sentence; but I do not feel that way about the "dealer". 


Local Yocal wrote on November 13, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Profile Picture

Well, that settles it then, Sid. I respect your position, but don't agree with it.

Personally, I don't like "dealers" either, and have little respect for the likes of a Scott Cochrane, an Eric Meyer, or a Jack Troxell, or even our new friend here James Hall- who do peddle to children, who are indirectly responsible for aggravated batteries, sexual assaults, unwanted pregnancies/abortions, DUI's, and car wrecks.

Even so, there is this thing called consumer demand. I don't agree with it, but people are going to buy Twinkies regardless of what it might say on the warning label.

Prohibition, in my opinion, is the worst way to go toward eliminating customer demand. It wastes enormous taxpayer monies better spent on treatment toward ending the demand, destroys families, has ruined The Bill of Rights, empowers the black market and organized gangs, increases violence, and does nothing to stop the flow and availability of drugs. (How does all that cocaine make it here?)

My stance against prohibition is not a support or defense of people who make money this way. I don't like casinos either, but it's been impossible to stop gamblers wanting to waste their money.

Your denouncing of cocaine is understandable, and I respect your position. I just don't believe we are going in the right direction using the current technique of prohibition to curb the demand.

Earlier comments made in the other thread were uncalled for on my part, (serf was right) and I accept the unnecessary roughness calls and suspend my participation for three weeks, as much as I hate sitting the bench.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 13, 2013 at 7:11 pm

No, Local don't sit on the bench.  You make valid points even if I disagree with them. That is a discussion, or debate.  Both of us make uncalled for comments.  I accept the unnecessary roughness calls myself.  Let's try to disagree, or agree without the unnecessary personal comments.  Continue to speak your opinions.

Marti Wilkinson wrote on November 12, 2013 at 9:11 pm

Like Local Yocal - I believe that many of our drug laws disenfranchise people who traditionally do not get treated fairly by our court system. For instance a U of I student who gets caught with a bag of weed is more likely to get a slap on the wrist, than a poor kid who gets caught smoking a joint across the street from a church. The reference to being within a distance from a park is pretty significant, because that has an impact on the severity of the charge. The resources that LY refers to (ie: Michelle Alexanders New Jim Crow) are well thought out and researched books. There is also a documentary called "The House I Live In", where many people discussed the downside to the war on drugs. Amongst the people interviewed in the documentary there was a judge and a corrections officer who questioned how the system treats non-violent offenders.

Felony disenfranchisement in employment is very real. Many places will not hire someone who has a criminal background, and the ability to make a living wage is impeded by a criminal record. I know someone who got busted for a bag of weed back in the early 1990's, and the amount put a felony on his record. Even though he has kept a clean record since then, he can't even do something as basic as volunteer at the local schools. Some employers, like temp agencies, require that a person be a specific period of time without charges before being assigned to a job site. Being eligible for education and housing assistance can also be affected by having a record. 

That being said, I do understand the point that is being made that there is no excuse for breaking the law.  There are also situations where doing a complete background check on a person is important. When I worked as a substitute teacher in Illinois, my fingerprints were sent to the FBI and I had to pass the required background checks to get my certifications and to be hired. It would also be reasonable for a bank to not want to hire someone with a record of theft, or a transportation company to to require clean driving records. 

At one point in our nation we tried to outlaw the consumption of alcohol, and it did much to turn organized crime into a growth industry. Personally, I think we should look into decriminalizing controlled substances and offer alternatives to jails and prisons. 

Local Yocal wrote on November 13, 2013 at 10:11 am
Profile Picture

"There is... a documentary called 'The House I Live In'...":

...another good documentary is Kevin Booth's earlier effort, American Drug War: The Last White Hope

Films being easier to digest than books for those who like their facts in visual form.

To be fair to Sid, if it's true that sellers of crud harm the general welfare, then a world of decriminalization will require some safeguards for the new priviledges.

1) Single dose causing hospitalization is a Class 4 felony aggravated battery charge.

2) Single dose causing death is a Class 1 involuntary manslaughter charge.

3) Deliberately providing or selling drugs to minors under 18 is a Class 4 felony, with subsequent incidents graduating the charges to higher felonies.

3(a) Purchasing recreational drugs using a fake I.D. is a Class 4 felony.

3(b) Recreational drugs are not allowed to be sold in vending machines.

4) Impaired driving on drugs causing accidents and death can follow the current laws on impaired driving.

5) Employers that involve the public trust can randomly drug test (with the test able to measure current intoxication) employees and those employees found currently intoxicated can be terminated immediately.

6) Retailers of recreational drugs are subject to random inspections (which gov't agency?), covert underage buys, expensive licensing fees, and can be shut down if it's shown they are causing harm to public health due to an inferior product.

7) Like cigarettes and alcohol, tax it heavy and set aside a large portion of the tax to be dedicated toward substance abuse treatment centers like the Prairie Center, Pavillion, Carle, Presence, ect. for those addicts who want to get well.

Law enforcement officers who have fought the drug war have formed an organization that patterns itself after Vietnam War Veterans Against the War, and do a lot of policy analysis on their website:

Nice Davis wrote on November 13, 2013 at 7:11 am

Nobody should be holding their breath waiting for Sid to offer actual empirical evidence that drug laws like this are beneficial for society. This is the same guy who rails against the widespread scourge of voter fraud by undocumented immigrants (even though no proof of such a thing exists) and bemoans the fact that Champaign firefighters have an average salary of <$40,000 (even though no firefighter makes less than $50,000 annually, and most make much more than that). He's rapidly moving into broken clock territory. It's hard to be right more than twice a day when all you depend on is your own puffed up anecdotes.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 13, 2013 at 1:11 pm

Davis; I did not respond to your previous article comment regarding the median salary for Champaign firefighters because you used one set of figures.  I used  I used Google.  It was one of several sites.  If I was wrong based on the median salary shown, I should have called the City of Champaign.  I do not know where you got your figures.  I am not disputing them.  That is why I did not dispute your claim. 

May I say that you seem to have made this a personal attack on me.  Why not drop the Nice in your tag?  Just go by Davis since there appears to be nothing Nice in your personal attack.  If you have personal issues, you should try to resolve them.  If you have personal issues with me, that can be resolved also.  I would prefer it to be in a resonable manner than your puffed up attacks, and one sided opinions.     

Nice Davis wrote on November 13, 2013 at 6:11 pm

I got my figures from the City of Champaign's salary report. You know, the report of all the salaries paid by the City of Champaign. It's the first thing that pops up when you google "champaign firefighter salary". But yeah, I guess is probably as trustworthy a site as the city's actual report.

I'm sorry your feelings got hurt on the internet. I'll let you go back to advocating for overstuffing the prisons with nonviolent offenders in peace. Namaste.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 13, 2013 at 7:11 pm

I don't advocate "overstuffing the prisons"; but I do advocate doing something about the crime.  That takes on more than sending people to prison.  It requires responsible families not tolerating their family members committing crimes.  It is easy to blame others, or circumstances for the crime being committed; but the individual made the choice.  Namaste to you too.