Demystifying Illinois DUI SentencingBy Larry A. DavisJuly 2009Article, Page 352Presenting Illinois’ confusing DUI sentencing options as a chart enables practitioners to see at a glance which penalties their clients face.
Amendments to DUI statute should be harmonizedJune 2009Illinois Law Update, Page 284On March 27, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, reversed the decision of the Circuit Court of Henry County, which granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that two subsections of the DUI statute enacted by PA 94-329 were not embodied in the DUI law, 625 ILCS 5/11-501 (2006), at the time the offenses were alleged to have been committed.
Subpoena for medical recordsJanuary 2009Illinois Law Update, Page 16On October 31, 2008, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Logan County denying the state's request for a subpoena duces tecum, seeking release of a defendant's medical records for the day the defendant was charged with driving under the influence (DUI).
DUI Law: The BAIID Era BeginsBy Helen W. GunnarssonDecember 2008Article, Page 616Goodbye JDP, hello "monitoring device driving permit." Here's a look at the sweeping new DUI law that takes effect January 1.
Aggravated driving under the influence is a Class 2 felonyNovember 2008Illinois Law Update, Page 554On September 8, 2008, the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Lake County finding the defendant guilty of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, and sentencing the defendant to three years in prison.
HGN tests meet the Frye standardBy Helen W. GunnarssonNovember 2008Lawpulse, Page 548So rules the Tenth Circuit court in the first-ever Illinois Frye hearing on the admissibility of HGN tests as an indicator of drunk driving - assuming various requirements are met.
DUI changes effective June 1By Helen W. GunnarssonJune 2008Lawpulse, Page 278Thanks to a law signed last year, a crazy quilt of DUI laws taking effect June 1 isn't so crazy. But ambiguities remain.
How to Admit or Exclude PBT ResultsBy Eric R. WaltmireFebruary 2008Article, Page 92Police sometimes administer preliminary breath tests to drivers stopped on suspicion of DUI. When and how are the results admissible in a hearing? Here's a look at the cases.
Frye-ing the HGN testBy Helen W. GunnarssonNovember 2007Lawpulse, Page 570The Illinois Supreme Court rules that a Frye hearing must be held to decide whether the horizontal gaze nystagmus test reliably indicates alcohol impairment.
New DUI bill replaces JDPs with “monitoring device driving permits”By Helen W. GunnarssonAugust 2007Lawpulse, Page 398A major overhaul of DUI law doubles the summary-suspension period and requires offenders to submit to alcohol monitoring devices in return for driving permits. Critics charge that it will produce unintended consequences, including fewer guilty pleas.
Hearing to rescind a suspended driver’s license must occur within 30 days of filingMarch 2007Illinois Law Update, Page 124On December 21, 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, and the Circuit Court of Kane County, and held the 30-day time limit within which a circuit court must hold a hearing on a petition to rescind the statutory suspension of a driver's license begins when the petition is filed with the circuit court, not when the state is served with the petition.
No statutory right to refuse chemical testing for DUIMay 2005Illinois Law Update, Page 232On February 3, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decisions of both the appellate and circuit courts, which granted the defendant's motion to suppress the results of his blood and urine tests.
DUI: the acid-reflux defenseBy Helen W. GunnarssonNovember 2004Lawpulse, Page 562The high court holds that defendants with acid-reflux disease can raise it as a defense if it causes them to regurgitate during breath-alcohol testing.
“No” to compulsory DUI blood testsBy Helen W. GunnarssonApril 2004Lawpulse, Page 170A second district case holds that nonconsensual, non-treatment-related blood and urine tests are inadmissible in DUI trials.