Traffic/DUI

Defendant's arrest for DUI was supported by probable cause, as facts were ample for a reasonably cautious person to believe that Defendant had committed DUI. Defendant admitted that he was drunk and that he had just been driving, and admissions were corroborated in numerous substantial respects Defendant was swaying, he had been in unexplained one-car accident, officer saw that vehicle was damaged. (SCHOSTOK and SPENCE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of DUI after bench trial. Court properly found that Defendant, who failed three field sobriety tests, was in actual physical control of his parked vehicle when officers found him alone and asleep in driver's seat while engine running. Possession of ignition key is one of numerous factors court weighs, on a case-by-case basis, to determine actual physical control. Officer's testimony that vehicle was running supported reasonable inference that Defendant was capable of driving his vehicle.(HALL and REYES, concurring.)

In DUI trial, court erred by submitting non-IPI jury instruction which included calculations for conversion factor for blood serum alcohol content to whole blood alcohol content, because it did not comply with rules of evidence as to judicial notice. Instruction was testimonial as it included calculations for jury using formula that included a contested fact, the Defendant's actual blood serum level, multiplied by conversion factor.(CARTER and HOLDRIDGE, concurring.)

Officer properly stopped Defendant, later convicted of DUI after bench trial, because her taillight cover had a chip resulting in taillight emitting a red and white light. Motor Vehicle Code requires that all motor vehicles exhibit at least two lighted tail lamps with a red light visible for at least 500 feet. Officer had reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle to investigate violation of Vehicle Code, and thus court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress. (WRIGHT and McDADE, concurring.)

Defendant was sentenced to 20 years for aggravated DUI, as result of collision that killed four people. Court made determination necessary to adjudicate Defendant guilty before sentencing her, including express finding that a factual basis existed for plea. Thus, court made adjudication of guilt apparent from the record, and court had authority to sentence Defendant. Although length of sentence would pose hardship to Defendant's three young children, for whom Defendant had been primary caretaker, court properly considered factors in mitigation, and found she was likely to reoffend based on PSI report, and rehabilitative potential was outweighed by seriousness of offense. (SPOMER and STEWART, concurring.)

(Court opinion modified 6/27/13.) An officer need not articulate that a certain traffic violation provided a reason for a traffic stop for the stop to be valid. Where undisputed that Defendant failed to signal her turn, even though officer did not include that violation as a basis to stop Defendant, that formed an objective basis for traffic stop. (BURKE and HUDSON, concurring.)

Defendant was charged with DUI and ticketed for improper lane usage. Court was not required to grant Defendant's motion in limine to bar admission of results of breath test where testing machine was not certified for 63 days, although Administrative Code requires that breath-testing machines be certified every 62 days. As State argued that it had substantially complied with the Code, court should hold evidentiary hearing on whether State substantially complied with Code regulations, to render test results admissible. (HUTCHINSON and HUDSON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of reckless driving and was sentenced to six months court supervision. Rule 604(b) gives appellate court authority to consider appeal, and does not require offender to choose between benefits of sentence of court supervision and right to appeal. Court did not improperly shift burden of proof to defense, in commenting, when denying Defendant's motion for directed finding at conclusion of State's case, that Defendant had not refuted State's evidence that sudden braking was unecessary based on conditions of roadway. (LYTTON and SCHMIDT, concurring.)

Defendant was charged with driving while license suspended. Officer testified that Defendant's behavior did not give him any suspicions, other than possibility that driver was owner of vehicle with warrant out for her arrest. Once officer knew Defendant was not vehicle's owner, there were no specific and articulable facts supporting probable cause. Court properly granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Officer requested Defendant's driver's license and proof of insurance after reasonable suspicion for the stop had dissipated, without first ending the seizure. By asking for license with no reasonable suspicion for continued detention, officer unreasonably prolonged the duration of the stop. (HOLDRIDGE, concurring; WRIGHT, dissenting.)