Traffic/DUI

Defendant was charged with aggravated DUI and aggravated driving while license revoked (DWLR). Officer's observations justified investigatory traffic stop, when he twice saw Defendant deviate from his own lane into another lane for no obvious reason. Motor Vehicle Code provision for improper lane usage contains no distance requirement; thus, it is irrelevant to officer's justification for investigatory stop whether motorist has driven for any appreciable distance in more than one lane. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

As original DUI(a)(5) charge was filed via uniform traffic citation and complaint form, compulsory-joinder rule does not apply as between that charge and subsequent DUI(a)(2) charge. Thus, speedy-trial period from original DUI(a)(5) charge does not apply to subsequent DUI(a)(2) charge, and State did not violate speedy-trial term as to subsequent DUI(a)(2) charge. (HOLDRIDGE, concurring; SCHMIDT, specially concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 7/3/12.) Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of aggravated driving with revoked or suspended license (DWRL), and sentenced as Class X offender to six years imprisonment. State failed to prove aggravating factor that Defendant's license had been revoked for violation of Section 11-501 of Vehicle Code. Trial court erred in rejecting, without explanation, Defendant's argument that revocation in effect in 2008 was not for DUI but for 1991 drug offense, so Defendant was guilty only of Class A misdemeanor DWLR. Secretary of State's 2001 formal administrative sanction of revocation for DUI had no effect because Secretary had never issued Defendant a new license after 1991 revocation. (McLAREN, concurring; BIRKETT, dissenting.)

Court properly dismissed without prejudice Defendant’s petition to rescind statutory summary suspension (SSS). Vehicle Code permits petition to rescind SSS to be brought only after State has served notice of suspension, and hearing must be held within 30 days of date petition to rescind SSS is properly filed. Service of notice of SSSS is satisfied by mailing with prepaid postage the notice to Defendant’s address as shown on traffic ticket. Substantial compliance with regulations for officer obtaining urine sample from arrestee is required, as strict compliance is not always realistic. (ZENOFF and BURKE, concurring.)

Officer knew that registered owner of vehicle was female, and that her license was suspended. After making a valid traffic stop, he learned that driver was male, at which time basis for stop dissipated. As Defendant admitted he did not have a driver's license in his possession, officer had a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify extending stop. Thus, court erred in granting Defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. (HUTCHINSON, specially concurring; BIRKETT, specially concurring.)

Court improperly rescinded statutory summary suspension in finding that Defendant was not arrested for DUI, because officer had handwritten on ticket that offense was "Leaving Scene of Accident--Damage Only"). Handwriting was a scrivener's error, and pre-printed form stated "DUI Criminal Complaint" and made several references to DUI; and officer's sworn report noted Defendant's refusal to submit to breath test referred to DUI statute. (JORGENSEN and HUTCHINSON, concurring.)