Traffic/DUI

Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of felony driving while license suspended or revoked and sentenced to one year conditional discharge and 60 days in jail.  Court properly denied Defendant's pretrial motion to quash his arrest and suppress evidence. Deputy had reasonable suspicion to make investigatory stop of Defendant's vehicle for possible criminal trespass to real property. Deputy was responding to a live complaint of a very recent criminal trespass to real property, alleging that someone was trespassing and running dogs on his property, and that complainant took deputy to exact location of trespass, where there was one vehicle, with dogs inside of dog box in the back of vehicle. Officer may make a lawful Terry stop without first determining whether circumstances he observed would satisfy each element of a certain offense.(O'BRIEN and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Defendant was arrested for DUI, and because he failed to complete a Breathalyzer test, his driving privileges were summarily suspended. Before the time to decided whether to take the Breathalyzer test expired, Defendant never expressly refused, or expressly agreed, to take the test, but "hemmed and hawed", and told officer that making a choice was a "huge" decision he didn't know how to resolve, and then used delay tactic of discussing various topics of conversation with officer. Defendant's failure to decide constituted a refusal, so that his statutory summary suspension was proper.(SCHOSTOK and McLAREN, concurring.)

Court properly denied Defendant's petition to rescind statutory summary suspension (SSS) of his driver's license, after he was charged with DUI. Court's finding that arrest took place in South Elgin was against manifest weight of evidence, as arresting police officer, who was on South Elgin City Police Department, testified that arrest was within Kane County's jurisdiction. If officer had probable cause to believe that Defendant was speeding within South Elgin, he was authorized to arrest Defendant outside of South Elgin. Officer used radar to monitor Defendant's speed while Defendant was driving within South Elgin, and thus he was performing official duty within his jurisdiction.(ZENOFF and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Defendant's driver's license was summarily suspended after his arrest for DUI. State failed to produce video of arrest, and court denied Defendant's sanctions motion based on its belief that video was not discoverable.  Defendant claimed that field sobriety tests and warning took place in booking room.  State did not dispute Defendant's claim, and State stipulated that a recording of events in booking room, responsive to Defendant's request, had existed.  Thus, booking room recording was relevant, and court erred in finding recording not discoverable. Because it was discoverable, no subpoena was required to obtain it, and once Defendant filed his Rule 214 motion for discovery and Rule 237 notice to produce, State was officially on notice to take action to preserve recording for its production either before trial or at trial.(SCHOSTOK and BURKE, concurring.)

Defendant was charged with DUI, possession of drug paraphernalia, and following too closely. Court erred in granting Defendant's motion to suppress. Uncontested testimony that Defendant followed officer's squad car at an interval of a car-length or less for the distance of a football field while travelling 30-35 mph. Officer Defendant’s vehicle based on his observation and opinion that defendant was following him at an unsafe distance, and officer's observation justified an investigatory traffic stop. (McLAREN and HUDSON, concurring.)

Plaintiff challenged a traffic ticket, on the ground that the ticket was the result of automated speed enforcement (ASE) camera operating near high school, and that law governing ASE cameras prohibited City from operating ASE camera near a school on that day (Thursday, June 26, 2014), which was a day in extended school year when special needs children were attending their regularly scheduled classes. The schooling of special need children qualifies as a school day for purposes of ASE law. Legislative history shows that legislators' primary purpose was to protect children, and that they intended to limit protection to days when children were in school and to exclude Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a vagueness challenge, as the ASE law was the same regardless of whether the ASE cameras were operating.  Court properly granted City's motion to dismiss and properly denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend.(REYES and PALMER, concurring.)

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of intoxicating compounds (DUI).  Court granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence that was allegedly the product of an illegal arrest.  Court then allowed results of urine test that hospital personnel administered to Defendant shortly after his arrest; court ultimately suppressed the test results. Although Defendant was arrested illegally, the test results were not tainted by the arrest, as they were the product of actions by hospital employees not acting at instigation or prompting of the police. Fourth amendment does not apply to a search or seizure effected by a private individual not acting as agent of government or with participation or knowledge of any governmental official. Thus, court erred in suppressing results of urine test done by hospital personnel.(HUTCHINSON and ZENOFF, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of driving while license revoked, operating an uninsured motor vehicle, no valid registration, and disobeying a traffic control device. Defendant had been riding a bicycle powered with a 3/4 hp motor; Defendant testified that one must pedal the bicycle up to 8-10 mph before activating the motor, and when pedaling in conjunction with the motor, it can travel 25-30 mph. State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the motorized bicycle was a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Code; thus, first 3 convictions are reversed. Offense of disobeying a traffic control device applied to Defendant even if he was not operating a "motor vehicle".  Thus, that conviction is affirmed.(McDADE and WRIGHT, concurring.)