Is a Frye hearing required to admit the results of HGN testing in DUI prosecutions?By Larry A. DavisDecember 2004Practitioners 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. HannaBy Edward M. MaloneyJanuary 2004In a blistering rebuff, the Illinois Supreme Court has reversed an Illinois Appellate Court decision that had required the Illinois Department of Public Health to follow its own rules and regulations.
Recent casesBy Thomas M. Moran & James J. AhernApril 2004A police officer has authority to stop a vehicle when the driver remains at a standstill for 20 seconds after the traffic control signal turns green. In People v. Kelly, No. #2-02-0274, ___ Ill.App.3d ___, 802 N.E.2d 850, 280 Ill.Dec. 599 (2d Dist. 2003), after the officer observed the defendant's vehicle remain stopped at an intersection for approximately 20 seconds after the light turned green.
Recent DUI casesBy James J. Ahern & Thomas M. MoranDecember 2004In a decision from the Illinois Supreme Court filed September 23, 2004, the Court recognized that a defendant may successfully raise the "GERD defense" as a basis for excluding the result of a breath test.
Recent DUI casesBy Thomas M. Moran & James J. AhernJanuary 2004Supreme 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.
Zero tolerance law upheldBy John T. Doddy, Jr.December 2004In Arvia v. Madigan, No. 95590, 2004 LEXIS 671, (Ill. Sup. Ct. April 15, 2004), the Illinois Supreme Court, on direct appeal by the State, reversed the finding of the Circuit Court of Cook County which found the Illinois Zero Tolerance Law (625 ILCS 5/11-501.8) unconstitutional on both equal protection and due process grounds.