Traffic/DUI

Defendant police officer was involved in traffic accident while off duty, and arrested for DUI; he took PBT (preliminary breath test) but refused any other testing. Defendant's drivers license was then summarily suspended. PBT results were not inadmissible under fifth amendment, as it protects against use of testimonial evidence, not physical evidence; and it prevents introduction of compelled testimony at criminal proceeds, rather than civil proceedings such as SSS proceedings. PBT statute does not require affirmative consent. Officer is not required to inform suspect of his right to refuse PBT testing. Court properly admitted PBT results, and thus court properly denied Defendant's petition to rescind SSS, as PBT showed 0.249 BAC. (CARTER and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted after stipulated bench trial of aggravated driving while license revoked. Vehicle Code prohibits any object, tinted or clear, designed to cover any characters of registration plate. Defendant's motorcycle had plastic cover on its registration plate, and cover was placed over characters of registration plate, and thus officer had legal basis to initiate traffic stop. Based on stipulation recited by defense counsel, evidence was sufficient to prove all elements necessary to establish Defendant was guilty of offense of aggravated driving while license revoked. Remanded for review and recalculation of monetary assessments by written order. (LYTTON and SCHMIDT, concurring.)

Court properly considered relevant sentencing factors and did not abuse discretion in sentencing Defendant to 7 years. Evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s Class 3 and 4 felony convictions where his driving abstract shows that his license was under statutory summary suspension (SSS) at time of offenses of driving while license revoked on two separate occasions. Prior revocation of Defendant’s driving privileges did not render his subsequent SSS a nullity for purposes of enhanced driving while license suspended or revoked charges.(PUCINSKI and LAVIN, concurring.)

(Correcting case citation and link.) Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of of one count aggravated DUI and one count aggravated DUI with BAC greater than 0.08. Stipulating as to what a witness would testify does not remove substance of a witness's testimony from evidence trial court may consider in stipulated bench trial. Stipulations to testimony a witness would give if called may properly form basis for finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by trial court in course of bench trial. Consent to a chemical test is not coerced and is not rendered involuntary merely by officer's reading of warning to motorist that informs Defendant of consequences of refusal. Thus, consensual blood test here did not violate Defendant's 4th Amendment rights. Court noted Defendant's 4 prior DUIs, and considered his family ties and obligations. Court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to 13 years imprisonment, as it was within range of 4 and 15 years for aggravated DUI for a 5th DUI conviction. (POPE and HARRIS, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of aggravated DUI resulting in a death, aggravated failure to report accident resulting in death, and disorderly conduct. As Defendant made no attempt to report accident, his argument that he was physically unable to go to a police station to make a report, because he was being detained by police, fails. Evidence showed that Defendant knew of accident yet made no attempt to report his involvement, even after being arrested for obstruction of justice and confronted with knowledge of victim's death. (ZENOFF and SPENCE, concurring.)