Traffic/DUI

Officer pulled Defendant over because of erratic driving. Defendant failed 3 field sobriety tests because he could not follow instructions. These observations were sufficient to justify Defendant’s arrest for DUI. As officers found Defendant’s actions and behavior inconsistent with his blood alcohol level, it was reasonable for officer to request that Defendant undergo blood or urine testing to determine if he was under the influence of drugs. Officer read Defendant a “Warning to Motorist” prior to requesting that he submit to a breath test. Officer was not required to provide Defendant with new warnings again, when he was asked to submit to urine or blood test less than one hour later. (HOLDRIDGE and SCHMIDT, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of DUI. Court abused its discretion in extending speedy trial term for 60 days so prosecutor could present his one witness, a state trooper. Prosecutor did not act with due diligence, as he did not make effort necessary to bring his witness to court in sufficient time to secure his presence before speedy trial term expired. Prosecutor requested 3 continuances, and Defendant had answered ready for trial on multiple trial dates, with delays totaling 160 days solely due to prosecutions’ inability to bring state trooper to court. Conviction reversed, and remanded with directions to enter order discharging Defendant. (PUCINSKI and HYMAN, concurring.)

Defendant was driving a semi-tractor trailer when he collided with several emergency vehicles responding to an earlier accident, and collision caused death of a volunteer firefighter. Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of reckless homicide. State failed to prove Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and State failed to present any evidence showing that Defendant was in conscious disregard of anything.State was required to, but failed to prove that defendant consciously disregarded the danger posed by the icy road conditions and, in so doing, engaged in conduct that represented a gross deviation from established norms society expects reasonable persons to undertake given those circumstances.(HOLDER WHITE and POPE, concurring.)

(Modified upon denial of rehearing 5/15/17.) Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of drugs or combination of drugs and improper lane usage. Court properly granted Defendant's petition to rescind statutory summary suspension (SSS). Officer admitted that he never observed Defendant and only knew Defendant's symptoms (seating, pinpoint pupils, fast heart rate) by speaking to paramedics, and that he had no experience in DUI of drugs. Officer lacked probable cause to believe that Defendant was under the influence of drugs; and Defendant told officer that he was a diabetic.(HOLDRIDGE, concurring; SCHMIDT, dissenting.)

Defendant was charged with DUI. Court properly granted Defendant's motion to suppress, and properly granted Petition to rescind statutory summary suspension (SSS). Officer testified that he could not tell how much Defendant, who had been in a single motorcycle accident, drank based on "slight odor" of alcoholic beverage on Defendant's breath; and testified that Defendant seemed honest to him before admitting that he had 1 drink. As officer was the only witness to testify at suppression hearing and court state that it questioned his credibility on issue of impairment, court properly granted motion to suppress. State's appeal did not require court to stay rescission hearing as DUI prosecution and SSS hearing are separate proceedings. Court properly relied on evidence from suppression hearing in deciding petition to rescind. (CARTER and McDADE, concurring.)