Publications

Section Newsletter Articles on DUI

Strip club may be liable for patron’s drunk driving By Robert T. Park Civil Practice and Procedure, May 2010 Plaintiffs alleged that defendant’s employees removed the intoxicated decedents from its club, ordered and assisted them into their car, and sent them away knowing the driver was drunk.
People v. McDonough, 395 Ill.App.3d 194, 334 Ill.Dec.764 (4th Dist. 2009) By David B. Franks Traffic Laws and Courts, March 2010 In this DUI case, the trial court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence on the ground that the State Trooper had improperly seized Defendant. Because the State Trooper did not engage in any police misconduct, the 4th District Appellate Court reversed the trial court, ruling that the exclusionary rule did not apply to this case.
Recent cases and cases of interest By Thomas M. Moran Traffic Laws and Courts, March 2010 Summaries of recent traffic law cases.
Sufficiency of proof for a conviction of DUI and reliability of Field-Sobriety Tests in proving intoxication By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, March 2010 In an opinion authored by Justice Steigmann, the court reviewed the evidence introduced at trial to determine whether it proved Defendant guilty of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt and also analyzed the Defendant’s claim that the field-sobriety tests were unreliable.
SCRAM: A sentencing option in alcohol-related offenses By Hon. Gregory Paul Vazquez Criminal Justice, October 2009 Attorneys and judges have been seeking optimal sentencing alternatives in cases where alcohol has either played a part in the offense or is a factor that needs to be addressed during the defendant’s sentencing hearing. A relatively recent option is the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring system, commonly referred to as SCRAM.
Recent traffic cases By Thomas M. Moran and James J. Ahern Traffic Laws and Courts, September 2009 Recent cases of interest to traffic laws practitioners.
Use and misuse of the MDDP By Lisa L. Dunn Traffic Laws and Courts, September 2009 This article will discuss: (1) the parameters of the MDDP program; (2) the MDDP offender’s responsibilities in conjunction with the use of the MDDP; (3) violations of the MDDP program; (4) sanctions authorized for violations of the MDDP program; and (5) the right to a hearing to contest the cancellation of the MDDP or extension of the summary suspension.
Motorist failed to present credible evidence of drug-interdiction checkpoint in statutory summary suspension hearing By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, June 2009 A summary of the case of People v. Scott W. Hacker.
Recent traffic cases By Thomas M. Moran and James J. Ahern Traffic Laws and Courts, June 2009 Recent cases of interest to traffic laws practitioners.
People of the State of Illinois ex. rel. LISA MADIGAN, Petitioner v. HONORABLE JAMES B. KINZER et.al, Respondents, No.105805: Stripping the Court of its discretion in sentencing for DUIs By Ava George Stewart Traffic Laws and Courts, March 2009 Your client’s ability to enter into a plea agreement for reckless driving, whether it is a ”reducer” from DUI or not, means that your client cannot receive court supervision for a subsequent DUI.
People v. Popeck: State’s right to all of defendant’s medical records on day of arrest By J. Randall Cox Traffic Laws and Courts, March 2009 A summary of the case of People v. Popeck.
New legislation By Steve Baker Traffic Laws and Courts, February 2008 Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that in cases involving reckless homicide in which the defendant unintentionally kills an individual while driving in a posted school zone or in a construction or maintenance zone, the trier of fact may infer that the defendant’s actions were performed recklessly where he or she was also either driving at a speed of more that 20 miles per hour in excess of the posted speed limit or violation the DUI provisions of the Illinois Vehicle code.
Recent traffic cases By James J. Ahern and Thomas M. Moran Traffic Laws and Courts, February 2008 Section 12-503(c) of the Illinois Vehicle Code prohibits a person from operating a vehicle: …with any objects placed or suspended between the driver and the front windshield, rear window, side wings or side windows immediately adjacent to each side of the driver which materially obstructs the driver’s view. (Emphasis added).
Supreme Court Rule 137 sanctions—Affirmed (DUI case) By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, February 2008 On November 26, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of McHenry County in an award of sanctions against the State (McHenry County) after the State filed two (2) notices of motion that violated local court rules and one (1) that was not properly placed on the court call. People v. Stefanski, ___ N.E.2d ___, 2007 WL 4181577, Ill.App.2 Dist., November 26, 2007 (No. 2-06-1176).
New Interlock Law important provisions By Edward M. Maloney Traffic Laws and Courts, December 2007 According to the Secretary of State DUI fact book 2007, which is the most recent data on this information, there are approximately 50,000 DUI arrest in Illinois in 2004.
DUI becomes an international matter By Maryann Bullion International and Immigration Law, August 2007 Many Illinois citizens are not aware that their criminal records could affect them outside the country.
Recent cases and cases of interest By James J. Ahern and Thomas M. Moran Traffic Laws and Courts, August 2007 Recent traffic cases of interest.
Alcohol monitoring ankle bracelets in DUI cases (SCRAM) By Donald J. Ramsell Traffic Laws and Courts, March 2007 Beginning in December of 2006, Du Page County became the first court in Illinois to allow the use of Alcohol Monitoring Ankle Bracelets in court cases involving DUO Attests.
Recent cases and cases of interest By James J. Ahern and Thomas M. Moran Traffic Laws and Courts, March 2007 In People v. Brady, No. 02-04-1281, ___ Ill.App.2d ___, ___ N.E.2d ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___ (2nd Dist. 2007), Defendant was charged with leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident involving death of a person, aggravated reckless driving and drag racing.
Is a treating physician required to be disclosed as an expert testimony in DUI prosecution? By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, January 2007 In the People v. Paul Cortez, the Illinois Appellate District held the testimony of the emergency room treating physician was not required to be disclosed as an expert testimony in the prosecution for DUI pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 412.
Criminal acts exclusion in auto gap insurance policy applies to driving under the influence By Michael J. Marovich Civil Practice and Procedure, January 2006 In Bohner v. Ace American Insurance Company, 359 Ill. App. 3d 621, 834 N.E.2d 635 (2nd Dist. 2005), the Second District Illinois Appellate Court held that the criminal acts exclusion in an automobile gap insurance policy applies in a driving-under-the-influence case.
Second District holds that preliminary breath tests (PBTs) can be used as evidence in statutory summary suspension hearings By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, June 2004 In People of the State of Illinois v. Rozela, 345 Ill.App.3d 217, (2nd Dist. 2003), the Illinois Appellate Court held that Section 11-501.5 of the Vehicle Code permitted the State to introduce the result of a Preliminary Breath Test (PBT) to support the officer's conclusion that he had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DUI in a statutory summary suspension hearing.
Recent DUI cases By Thomas M. Moran and James J. Ahern Traffic Laws and Courts, January 2004 Supreme Court Rule 412(a)(i) requires that the State, as part of pretrial discovery and upon the defendant's request, supply the defendant with the names of persons whom the State intends to call as witnesses.
Recent DUI cases By Thomas M. Moran and James J. Ahern Real Estate Law, September 2003 Recent DUI cases.
An argument as to why emergency room medical records are inadmissible in a DUI prosecution By Rachel J. Hess Traffic Laws and Courts, December 2001 Scenario: Defendant was charged with various violations of the Illinois vehicle code including Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol in violation of 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(1) and (2).
Driving relief—explaining those arrests … By David K. Harris and Robert Barewin General Practice, Solo, and Small Firm, August 1999   A common basis for denial of driving relief by the Illinois Secretary of State is a finding that the driver's claimed "typical pattern of drinking" is inconsistent with multiple arrests. The following letter from the evaluator is a good example of how to address such finding at the next hearing.