Traffic/DUI

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.)

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.)