Traffic/DUI

Defendant, then age 19, was convicted of aggravated DUI and sentenced to 12 years. Three back-seat passengers died in crash. Admissions of his front-seat passenger's out-of-court statement (in the hospital, to the police) that he heard a back seat passenger yell to the driver that he shouldn't be doing that, in the moments before the crash, did not meet requirements for admissibility as substantive evidence, and was improperly admitted for purposes of impeachment.  State's case was not affirmatively damaged by passenger's professed lack of memory as to that statement. Error was harmless, as Defendant admitted to police that he was "huffing" from a can of compressed air in the vehicle while driving. (LYTTON and O'BRIEN, concurring.)

(Modified upon denial of rehearing 11/13/15.) Jury convicted Defendant of driving with alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. State failed to establish foundational requirement that his Breathalyzer test results were certified as accurate at least once within 62 days prior to his test. Although electronic certification contains raw date from accuracy tests conducted electronically by State Police, it provides no interpretation of that data, so it cannot be determined whether Breathalyzer test performed within accuracy tolerance and was certified as accurate for that time period. (HOFFMAN and HALL, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of DUI. State presented sufficient evidence from a credible police officer that Defendant emitted a strong odor of alcohol, exhibited slightly slurred speech, had bloodshot eyes, and performed poorly on field-sobriety tests. Appellate court declines to reweigh evidence against Defendant; weaknesses in evidence noted by Defendant do not lead appellate court to conclude that evidence of guilt was so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of Defendant's guilt. (NEVILLE and SIMON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of aggravated DUI. Parties stipulated that accident resulted in great bodily harm to a passenger in her vehicle, and to driver of other vehicle with which she collided. Parties stipulated that Defendant had, in her system, THC metabolite, from use of cannabis, and that Defendant's vehicle crossed into other driver's lane. Court erred in denying Defendant the right to present a defense, as she was not allowed to contest the "proximate cause" element of her charge. Defendant should have been allowed to present physician's testimony that Defendant has low blood pressure, and that it is possible that loss of consciousness right before accident was caused by this condition, for court to decide whether Defendant's sudden illiness was sole and proximate cause of accident.(STEWART and SCHWARM, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 9/30/15.) Police officers conducted traffic stop after twice observing passenger-side tires of Defendants' vehicle completely cross over solid white fog line on right side of road, first on entrance ramp and then while on interstate. Defendants were found in possession of at least 900 grams of heroin in duffel bag found on front passenger-seat floorboard, after dog sniff of exterior of vehicle. Court erred in granting dual motions to suppress heroin. Probable cause existed for stop, as Vehicle Code prohibits driving on shoulder. Traffic stop was not unduly delayed, as trained narcotics canine arrived less than 5 minutes after stop, and before purpose of stop was completed, and traffic stop last less than 10 minutes.(HOLDRIDGE, concurring; LYTTON, specially concurring.)

Police requested that Plaintiff submit to chemical testing for impairment nearly 48 hours after Plaintiff's vehicle collided with oncoming motor bike, seriously injuring motor bike driver and killing bike's passenger. Court properly found Section 11-501.6 of Illinois Vehicle Code unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff. While there is essential nexus between the State’s interest in protecting the public from intoxicated drivers and requiring a driver’s consent to a chemical test when he is arrested for a moving violation shortly after his involvement in a serious accident, there is clearly not such a nexus between that legitimate state interest and a chemical test remote in time from the accident. (GARMAN, FREEMAN, KILBRIDE, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of unlawful cannabis trafficking and sentenced to 12 years. Court’s conclusion that arresting officer was credible is not entitled to deference, as that conclusion was clearly against manifest weight of evidence. Officer was not credible as to whether he smelled cannabis emanating from Defendant’s vehicle. Thus, officer was not justified in prolonging during of traffic stop for improper lane usage. Thus, court erred in denying motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. (O'BRIEN, concurring; CARTER, dissenting.)

Defendant was charged with misdemeanor DUI and several traffic offenses. State turned over squad car video recording of traffic stop, which did not capture Defendant's field sobriety tests because arresting officer directed Defendant to perform tests in area outside view of camera. Court granted Defendant's motion for sanctions, on grounds that officer's direction resulted in no video being created, and barred testimony about Defendant's field sobriety tests. As no discovery violation occurred, because State neither destroyed nor withheld squad car video from Defendant, court erred in granting motion for sanctions.(LYTTON, specially concurring; HOLDRIDGE, dissenting.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of driving with BAC of 0.08 or more. Court properly admitted as a business record a report of accuracy checks performed on instrument used to administer breath test. State had filed motion in limine seeking admission of accuracy checks as business records, with attached verified certification signed by recordkeeper. That certification was dated two years after records were created did not render records inadmissible, as certification indicated that records were created at or near time of matters set forth in records, which were dated in months of and after Defendant's arrest. Officer's testimony that logbook and printouts of automated accuracy checks were retained in regular course of business was sufficient to lay foundation for admission of printouts. Court properly sustained State's objections to testimony of expert, who was qualified in areas of Intox EC/IR machines and standardized field sobriety tests (FSTs), about accuracy of Defendant's breath test result in light of his performance on FSTs. (SCHOSTOK and SPENCE, concurring.)