Traffic/DUI

House Bill 3972

Topic: 
Cell phones and driving
(D’Amico, D-Chicago; Mulroe, D-Chicago) bans using a cell phone while driving with exceptions for hands-free or voice-operated mode, which may include the use of a headset or using a communication device that may be initiated or terminated by pressing a single button.

People v. Mains

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Fourth Amendment
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (2d) 110262
Decision Date: 
Friday, May 11, 2012
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Boone Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
SCHOSTOK
Court improperly granted motion to quash Defendant's arrest for aggravated driving while license revoked. Traffic stop was valid exercise of officer's community caretaking function, an exception to fourth amendment's warrant requirement. Defendant was driving a malfunctioning vehicle dows a mutlilane road with moderate traffic, with emergency flashers on, then pulled into private driveway and began examining vehicle's engine. It was objectively reasonable for officer to stop to check on Defendant to see if assistance needed. Officer's request for Defendant's ID did not mean that officer was conducting criminal investigation. (JORGENSEN and McLAREN, concurring.)

HJRCA 29

Topic: 
Victims' rights constitutional amendment
(Lang, D-Chicago; Steans, D-Chicago) is poised to amend the Illinois Constitution to create standing for victims to participate in criminal proceedings as a party. If passed, it would go on the ballot this November for Illinois citizens to approve or disapprove. It expands several of the ten current rights and creates three new ones. Specifically, HJRCA 29 creates the following rights for victims: (1) The right to be free from “harassment, intimidation, and abuse” throughout the criminal justice process. Currently Section 8.1 requires that victims be treated with fairness and respect for their dignity and privacy. (2) The right to refuse to disclose to the defendant information that is privileged or confidential by law, as determined by a court of law with jurisdiction over the case. (3) The right to confer (instead of communicate) with the prosecution. (4) The right to be heard at any post-arraignment court proceeding in which a right of the victim is at issue and any court proceeding involving a post-arraignment release decision, plea, or sentencing. Currently victims have a right to make a statement to the court at sentencing. (5) The right to have access to information in a report related to any aspect of a defendant’s sentence when available to the defendant as the General Assembly may provide by law. (6) The right to be notified of the conviction, the sentence, the imprisonment, and the release of the accused. (7) The right to have the safety of the victim and the victim's family considered in denying or fixing the amount of bail, determining whether to release the defendant, and setting conditions of release after arrest and conviction. HJRCA 29 is scheduled for hearing today in Senate Executive Committee.

Missing Video Evidence in DUI Cases after People v. Kladis

By Thomas Kantas
May
2012
Article
, Page 250
In Kladis, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the state commits a discovery violation if it loses or destroy video evidence in a misdemeanor DUI case. Here's a look at this and related cases.
2 comments (Most recent May 2, 2012)

People v. Merrick

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Aggravated DUI
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (3d) 100551
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kankakee Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
CARTER
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of two counts of aggravated DUI, and sentenced to 8 years in DOC with final 11 months to be served with electronic home monitoring. Defendant's BAC was 0.212, and thus State needed prove only that Defendant's driving caused death of his passenger. State met this burden, as Defendant conceded that his driving caused accident, and evidence showed that passenger died as result of accident, as cause of death was blunt neck and chest trauma. Court properly considered aggravating and mitigating factors, and sentence is not manifestly disproportionate to nature of offense. (LYTTON and WRIGHT, concurring.)

People v. Farris

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
DUI
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (3d) 100199
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kankakee Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HOLDRIDGE
State appealed order granting DUI Defendant's petition to rescind statutory summary suspension (SSS) and granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence from blood alcohol test using blood forcibly drawn from Defendant by hospital personnel at instruction of police officer. Law enforcement has no statutory right to use force to extract blood sample if Defendant refused to cooperate. Defendant's refusal to comply with request for sample is sufficient to justify SSS, for purpose of protecting public from intoxicated drivers, and thus forced sample collection serves no legitimate law enforcement purpose. Court properly denied State's motion to amend officer's sworn report, as proposed amendment would have prejudiced Defendant and likely introduced element of surprise. (O'BRIEN, concurring; WRIGHT, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

People v. Hansen

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
DUI
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (4th) 110603
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Jersey Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
STEIGMANN
Court granted DUI Defendant's petition to rescind his statutory summary suspension and motion to quash arrest. Nonanonymous nature of tip of reckless driving, and quantity and detail of information in tip, were sufficient to assure officer could be certain he was stopping the correct vehicle. Interval of six minutes each between first tip call and second tip call and stop does not render information less reliable. Erratic driving reported is reasonable basis for making stop without first observing traffic violation. (APPLETON and KNECHT, concurring.)

Village of Bull Valley, Illinois v. Winterpacht

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
DUI
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (2d) 101192
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
McHenry Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
SCHOSTOK
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of driving with BAC of 0.08 or above, but found not guilty of DUI. Jury could make reasonable inferences from evidence, including Defendant's admission that she had been drinking and signs of intoxication, that BAC at time of accident was similar to or higher than her level of 0.182 when tested two hours later. Extrapolation evidence was not required. (BOWMAN and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Fischetti v. The Village of Schaumburg

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Traffic Laws
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 111008
Decision Date: 
Friday, March 23, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
McBRIDE
Plaintiff sued Village after she was fined $100 for running run light; Village had used automated cameras at intersection to issue tickets to owner of vehicle. Plaintiff was ticketed per local ordinance authorized by comprehensive Illinois red light camera legislation, and mirrored wording of those new state laws. Plain language of statute does not require Village to prove that Plaintiff was personally driving her vehicle at time of traffic violation. Wording of Section 11-306 is general enoough to be applied to registered owners and drivers of vehicles. (J. GORDON and HOWSE, concurring.)

House Bill 3944

Topic: 
Eavesdropping exemption
(Nekritz, D-Des Plaines) creates an exemption from prosecution for eavesdropping. It allows a citizen to record a law enforcement officer performing public duties in a public place. “Public place" means any place to which the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, sidewalks, parks, and highways (including inside motor vehicles), and the common areas of public and private facilities and buildings. This was defeated in the House yesterday on a 45-59-1 vote.