Traffic/DUI

Court properly granted Defendant's motion to quash his arrest for DUI, finding that officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify traffic stop. Court found officer not credible in testimony that he observed Defendant's obstruction of traffic and improper lane usage, and video of stop did not provide conclusive proof of alleged violations. Tip from nearby casino, that they had cut off a customer from further drinking, was insufficient to justify the stop. Court properly ruled that audio recording of tip from casino was inadmissible hearsay, as the only non-cumulative, probative value was for the truth of the matter asserted: that the two persons about to leave the casino were intoxicated. (LYTTON and HOLDRIDGE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of driving on suspended license. Defendant timely filed a petition to rescind statutory summary suspension (SSS), within 90 days from notice of suspension. Defendant had SSS voided through limited grounds for rescission under Section 2-118.1 in Jackson County, and then directly (not collaterally) attacked citation for driving on suspended license in Perry County, Citation could not stand, as SSS was rescinded. (WELCH and CHAPMAN, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of driving while license suspended. Statutory summary suspension was in effect, from a DUI arrest in another county, was in effect when Defendant was stopped. State was under no obligation to present evidence to prove that Defendant was not operating vehicle as allowed by monitoring device driving permit (MDDP). That a driver is eligible for MDPP does not necessarily mean that driver will comply with MDDP requirement. As there was insufficient evidence to raise a defense based on issuance of, and compliance with, a MDDP, State met its burden of proof by establishing that Defendant drop during SSS and was eligible for MDDP. (JORGENSEN and BURKE, concurring.)

Defendant, after being convicted of DUI and other traffic violations, was sentenced in absentia to jail and ordered to pay $172.60 for emergency response restitution. Scope of statute does not permit restitution merely for traffic stop enforcing the violation of Section 11-501 of Traffic Code. The costs of enforcing DUI violation are internalized through other imposed fines, fees, and costs from conviction. The external costs of emergency response, otherwise borne by the public, would not be internalized but for Section 501.01 of the Code. (TURNER and STEIGMANN, concurring.)

Defendant was arrested for DUI after stopping his car at roadside safety checkpoint. Investigatory stop did not occur, and Defendant did not contest his detention for DUI once officer approached him; thus, Defendant was not seized. Officer would have had ample basis for stopping and detaining Defendant, based on officer's observations that Defendant was driving too fast while approaching safety checkpoint, where multiple squad cars were parked. (CARTER, concurring; McDADE, dissenting.)

Court improperly granted DUI Defendant's petition to rescind statutory summary suspension (SSS) and motion to suppress evidence. Officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Defendant, after officer observed him cross over center line into oncoming lane of traffic, and do a "donut" in parking lot. (McDADE and O'BRIEN, concurring.)

Plaintiff filed FOIA complaint alleging that Secretary of State improperly denied his request for automated access to all DMV administrative decisions of license suspension or revocation within one year. Although request was invalid as to documents not yet created, it was valid as to existing documents. Secretary of State has burden to confer in attempt to reduce request to manageable proportions, before determining that request is unduly burdensome. (JORGENSEN and HUTCHINSON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of DUI after bench trial. Defendant introduced trial court's error into hearing, arguing that burden was shifted because Defendant had established that she was arrested without a warrant; and State did not acquiesce in error but deferred to trial court. Court properly refused to quash arrest and suppress evidence. (BURKE and BIRKETT, concurring.)