Articles From Larry A. Davis

Recent U.S. Department of Justice Funded Study Raises Constitutional Issues & Prosecution Challenges in Cannabis-Related DUI Cases By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, May 2021 A recent U.S. Department of Justice study stated that THC is not a reliable marker of cannabis impariment and field sobriety tests were not sensitive to cannabis intoxication.
What Constitutes Sufficient Notice to a Defendant Under the Summary Suspension Law By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, February 2021 A summary and analysis of The City of Highland Park v. Demitrius Bryan.
Constitutionality of the Per Se DUI Cannabis Statute in Light of the Legalization of Recreational Use By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, December 2019 An overview of how the new recreational cannabis laws affect the current DUI provisions governing per se cannabis violations under 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(7).
1 comment (Most recent December 20, 2019)
Has Missouri v. McNeely Been Overruled by Mitchell v. Wisconsin? By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, August 2019 In Mitchell v. Wisconsin, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Wisconsin statute providing for a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious DUI suspect is always constitutional, except in the rarest of circumstances, pursuant to the “exigent circumstances” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
Legislative highlights for 2015 By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, June 2016 The 2015 99th Illinois General Assembly was one of the most productive and successful in recent memory for legislative initiatives supported by the ISBA.
New amendments to the DUI provisions of the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, March 2015 While the Act has been amended to address a significant problem with its provisions, it continues to maintain others.
1 comment (Most recent February 19, 2015)
Constitutionality of Secretary of State BAIID violation hearings By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, May 2014 Since the burden of proof is on the driver to establish that no violation occurred, the Secretary of State will typically uphold the suspension based solely on the evidence provided by the printout.
1 comment (Most recent May 7, 2014)
Is the Illinois summary revocation law enforceable? By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, January 2014 As things currently stand, law enforcement officers should be properly trained that where probable cause to arrest for DUI exists prior to requesting testing, warnings must be given pursuant to Section 11-501.1 and where such reasonable grounds do not exist, warnings must provided under Section 11-501.6.
Defending a person charged with driving while revoked who has obtained a license issued in error or through fraud after revocation By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, June 2013 A summary of the recent case of People v. Jackson.
Probable cause and driving while revoked—An evolving standard and split between appellate districts By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, December 2009 For many too young to remember, there was a time in the jurisprudence of this state when in order to effectuate a stop for the offense of driving while revoked or suspended absent an independent basis for the stop, e.g., observation of a violation of the vehicle code, the law enforcement officer was required to possess independent knowledge that the individual operating the motor vehicle was, in fact, revoked or suspended.
Is a Frye hearing required to admit the results of HGN testing in DUI prosecutions? By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, December 2004 Practitioners in the field of DUI have known for a number of years that horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) testing has been held to be admissible for the purpose of establishing probable cause to arrest in the context of a petition to rescind a statutory summary suspension or motion to quash arrest without the necessity of conducting a Frye hearing.
People v. Smith and People v. Laake: A new exception to the 4th Amendment prohibition against warrantless seizures? By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, June 2004 Illinois courts have generally recognized only three circumstances under which police-citizen encounters in the absence of a warrant may be deemed permissible under the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Gumma v. White-Application of the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel in summary suspension proceedings By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, April 2004 Since the Supreme Court's decision in People v. Moore, 138 Ill.2d 162, 149 Ill.Dec.278, 561 N.E.2d 648 (1990), the courts have consistently held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel cannot be applied to bar re-litigation of an issue determined at a summary suspension hearing in the subsequent criminal DUI proceeding.
Non-consensual chemical testing held to be generally inadmissible in DUI cases By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, January 2004 Since 1986, it has been clear that under Illinois law the non-consensual, or involuntary withdrawal of a blood, urine or breath sample from a person arrested for DUI was admissible against such person, provided that probable cause existed for the charged offense.
Appellate court holds Supreme Court Rule 504 is applicable to DUI cases By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, May 2003 Since the Supreme Court's decision in 1976 in Village of Park Forest v. Fagan, 64 Ill. 2d 264, 356 N.E. 2d 59 (1976), it has been this author's experience that many courts have been reluctant or have refused to apply the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 504 (166 Ill. 2d R. 504) to major traffic offenses, such as DUI.
Second Appellate District holds that the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to statutory summary suspension hearings—A critique By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, May 2003 In Village of Algonquin v. Tilden, 335 Ill. App. 3d 332, 280 N.E. 2d 832; 269 Ill. Dec. 360 (2nd D, 2002), the Second Appellate District held that a defendant can be compelled to testify as an adverse witness in a hearing conducted pursuant to her petition to rescind a statutory summary suspension without implicating the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.
When does the 90-day filing requirement to challenge a statutory summary suspension begin? By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, July 2002 In an effort to prevent drivers from filing petitions to rescind months, if not years, after a statutory summary suspension had become effective, often after the suspension had already terminated, the Legislature amended 625 ILCS 5/118.1(b) effective January 1, 1996 to provide:
Is it time to revisit the doctrine of collateral estoppel in the context of statutory summary suspension hearings? By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, May 2002 On January 1, 1986, what is known as the Illinois Summary Suspension Law became effective.
Do breath operators have valid licenses? By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, June 2001 Effective January 1, 2001 the Illinois State Police assumed responsibility for the regulation of chemical tests performed pursuant to the Illinois summary suspension laws 625 ILCS 5/11-501.1 11-501.6 and 11-501.8 as well as those arising out of an arrest for violation of 11-501 from the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPD). See 625 ILCS 5/11-501.2; 11-501.6 and 11-501.8.
The authority to effectuate an arrest in Illinois By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, October 2000 A new appellate court case, People vs. Kirvelaitis (No. 2-99-859, 2nd District, 8/9/00), contains an excellent discussion of a police officer's authority to arrest under current Illinois law.
Secretary of State formal hearings now to be available in Jefferson County By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, October 2000 SB 1630 requiring the secretary of state to conduct formal hearings in Jefferson County has been signed by Governor Ryan effective January 1, 2001. (P.A. 91-823).
Are licenses issued by the Illinois Department of Public Health to operate breath analysis instruments valid? By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, June 1999 John Doe is arrested for DUI on October 27, 1998, and agrees to submit to evidentiary breath testing, resulting in a BAC of .17.
Fifth Appellate District casts doubt on validity of the Intoxilyzer 5000 results By Larry A. Davis Traffic Laws and Courts, April 1999 The Fifth Appellate District has held in a published decision that procedures employed in the programming and use of the Intoxilizer 5000 widely used by the Illinois State Police (and local police agencies) violate Illinois law.

Spot an error in your article? Contact Sara Anderson at sanderson@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article,visit the ISBA Newsletters page.

Select a Different Author