Traffic/DUI

House Bill 175

Topic: 
Open Meetings Act
(McSweeney, R-Cary) provides that a request for review may be filed no later than 60 days after the discovery of an alleged violation of the Act (instead of 60 days after the alleged violation) if facts concerning the violation are not discovered within 60 days after the alleged violation but are discovered at a later date by a person using reasonable diligence. Introduced and assigned to House Rules Committee.

Senate Bill 45

Topic: 
Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act
(Barickman, R-Bloomington) provides procedures for the issuance of a subpoena to require deposition testimony or discovery production in this State for litigation pending in a foreign jurisdiction. Provides that Illinois Supreme Court rules and the Section of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning subpoenas apply to subpoenas issued under the new provisions. Introduced and assigned to the Senate Committee on Assignments.

People v. Morales

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Statutory Summary Suspension
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 131207
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
FITZGERALD SMITH
Court improperly rescinded DUI Defendant's statutory summary suspension of his driver's license. No due process violation where Defendant was provided notice and a hearing. Defendant was served with notice on date he was arrested for DUI, and had opportunity to present any objections at court hearing. That a letter "Notice of Summary Suspension" from Secretary of State arrived by mail when his suspension had already begun was irrelevant, as it was merely a confirmation that his license was suspended, and did not impact his procedural due process rights. (HOWSE and EPSTEIN, concurring.)

People v. Morrow

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Aggravated DUI
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (2nd) 130718
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
BURKE
Court did not apply Defendant's 7 previous DUI convictions in aggravation, but properly discussed them in relation to the nature and circumstances of the offense, Defendant's likelihood to reoffend, protection of the public, and deterrence, in sentencing Defendant to 13 years incarceration for aggravated DUI, which is a Class X felony based on at least five prior DUI convictions. (ZENOFF and SPENCE, concurring.)

Senate Bill 2799

Topic: 
FOIA

(Currie, D-Chicago) amends the FOIA Act to do two things. (1) It expands exemption (f) to include “correspondence” as exempt from a FOIA request. But this exemption is waived if and only if the specific record is publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body. If the specific record is publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body, then only those portions of the specific record publicly cited and identified are no longer exempt. Records exempt from disclosure under this subsection and not publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body, including, but not limited to, purely factual material, remain exempt regardless of whether the record was adopted or incorporated into a final decision of the public body. (2) If the public body produces the records after a suit has been filed under this Section, but before the court renders a final judgment, the court must award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if the court imposes a civil penalty under subsection (j). For purposes of this subsection (i), a requester “prevails” if the person obtains relief through: (a) a court-approved settlement or consent decree; or (b) a final unappealable judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. House Amendment No. 3 remains in House Executive Committee.

People v. Gaede

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
DUI
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (4th) 130346
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Macon Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
POPE
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of DUI. Defendant refused to submit to chemical breath test requested by arresting officer. Implied-consent statute is not facially unconstitutional. A statute is facially unconstitutional only if statute can never be constitutionally applied. Statute allowed Defendant to refuse request for breath test, and his fourth amendment rights were not violated when he refused test. No constitutional violation in suspension of drivers license after refusal, or in introduction at trial of Defendant's refusal of breath test, because Defendant does not always have a constitutional right to refuse a breath test.(KNECHT and TURNER, concurring.)

Hayenga v. The City of Rockford

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Administrative Review
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (2d) 131261
Decision Date: 
Thursday, October 30, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Winnebago Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
McLAREN
Defendant City, a non-home-rule unit of government, impounded Plaintiff's vehicle, after police found drug paraphernalia in vehicle during traffic stop made while Plaintiff's boyfriend was driving.Plaintiff brought administrative action. Court reversed decision of administrative hearing officer, and court properly found that City did not have authority to impound vehicle. Section 11-208.7 of Vehicle Code does not grant authority for non-home-rule entities to impound vehicle, but only to enact ordinances and establish procedures for release of properly impounded vehicles. Officer was not required to arrest boyfriend, but could have issued him a notice to appear per section 107-12 of Code of Criminal Procedure, without taking him into custody.(JORGENSEN and SPENCE, concurring.)

What’s New in Traffic Law for 2014

By Larry A. Davis & Thomas C. Speedie
November
2014
Article
, Page 532
Are you a lawyer who represents drivers, or maybe one who gets behind the wheel from time to time? Here are nine important traffic law developments.
1 comment (Most recent November 3, 2014)

People v. Galloway

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Speedy Trial
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 123004
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
McBRIDE
Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of misdemeanor offenses of driving with suspended license and failure to give information, and petty offense of driving left of center. Defendant failed to appear when case was called for trial at 9 a.m., and did not arrive at court until sometime that afternoon. Defendant's failure to arrive until several hours after time set for trial, when State's witnesses were present and ready for trial, constituted a waiver of her speedy trial demand. Defendant's failure to appear at earlier status date waived her speedy trial demand.(GORDON and REYES, concurring.)

The Village of Bull Valley v. Zeinz

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Traffic
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (2d) 140053
Decision Date: 
Monday, September 29, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
McHenry Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
SPENCE
Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of DUI and improper lane usage (ILU), prosecuted by Village. Village failed to establish that Defendant committed either offense within the Village's corporate limits. Officer's testimony that Defendant was driving out of Village limits was speculative and officer admitted that when he saw Defendant he was outside of Village limits. State's Attorney's office did not authorize Village to prosecute ILU offenses. (McLAREN and JORGENSEN, concurring.)