Traffic/DUI

(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 State failed to prove aggravating factor that Defendant's license had been revoked for violation of Section 11-501 of Vehicle Code.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Court improperly rescinded statutory summary suspension in finding that Defendant was not arrested for DUI, because officer had handwritten on ticket that offense was "Leaving Scene of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.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated DUI. Defendant failed to object at trial to foundation for State's evidence of Defendant's HGN testing, and acquiesced in its admittance, and thus forfeited issue on appeal. Officer testified that he did not know how much alcohol Defendant had consumed, and acknowledged that HGN test is not alone conclusive evidence of intoxication. Court's order of $133 restitution to police department is not authorized under Section 11-501.01(i) of Unified Code of Corrections which allows order of restitution to public agency making appropriate emergency response. (TURNER and STEIGMANN, concurring.)