Traffic/DUI

Defendant was charged with driving with a breath-alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more and DUI. Court erred in granting his motion to suppress result of breath test Defendant took at police station. Although officer deviated from the prescribed procedure in that he failed to continuously observe Defendant for the full 20-minute period, video of Defendant in booking room shows that during officer's absences from the room Defendant did not commit a disqualifying act. Thus, officer's failure to continuously observe Defendant was not fatal to reliance on the result of the breath test. (McLAREN and BURKE, concurring.)

Plaintiff sued towing company and its agent for towing his vehicle in violation of section 4-203(f)(3) of Illinois Vehicle Code, “Unlawful Removal of Vehicle”. Plaintiff prevailed at trial; Defendants appealed court’s award of attorney fees. Vehicle Code awards fees only against the owner or lessor of the property, or someone authorized by that person, who orders a vehicle removed from the property, and not the towing company.  (FITZGERALD SMITH and HOWSE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, on all counts in 2 separate cases arising from 2 separate traffic incidents that occurred on the same day. First incident, in Naperville,  alleged leaving the scene of an accident involving an unattended vehicle, and failure to reduce speed; second incident (16 minutes later), in Warrenville, was arrest for DUI (drugs/combination of drugs/cannabis). As Defendant failed to rebut State’s expert’s critical testimony that there was no evidence of contamination in urine sample, leak of sample neither prejudiced Defendant nor rendered test results unreliable. Defendant stipulated that State’s expert was an expert in drug recognition; and scientific evidence of intoxication is unnecessary. Evidence was sufficient to show that Defendant was under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs when he drove his vehicle, and thus his conviction for DUI is affirmed. Convictions in case as to first incident is vacated and remanded, as court erred in adjudicating those counts on date that case was set for status, not trial, thus denying Defendant due process.   (HUTCHINSON and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)

Court dismissed DUI charge after granting Defendant’s motion to suppress. Court ruled that facts known to officer at time he arrested Defendant did not amount to probable cause to arrest him.State indicated that it had additional evidence to present at trial. Court’s order granting motion to suppress and quash arrest was thus not a final order and was not tantamount to acquittal, and did not serve as a bar to further prosecution. Court had no statutory authorization to dismiss the DUI charge. As State was not obligated to show probable cause to proceed on DUI charge, which is a Class A misdemeanor, its failure to do so is not a prejudicial denial of Defendant’s due process rights. (CARTER and O’BRIEN, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated DUI. No error in court, during jury deliberations, allowing Assistant State’s Attorney and 2 court bailiffs to be present in jury room to set up DVD video recorder on computer in jury room, while jurors were present; no evidence that they remained in jury room while jury viewed DVD, or that court instructed them to remain there during viewing. Both parties were present in court when court discussed jury’s request for video and proposed procedure of setting up DVD. (HOLDRIDGE, concurring and specially concurring; CATER, specially concurring.)