Traffic/DUI

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Court improperly rescinded statutory summary suspension in finding that Defendant was not arrested for DUI, because officer had handwritten on ticket that offense was "Leaving Scene of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.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of driving while controlled substance present in her urine. Evidence at trial established that Defendant had morphine and codeine in her urine sample, and presence of both was consistent with use of prescription cough medicine; and that her prescription was valid and she had taken medication per prescribed dosage. Thus, presence of controlled substances was not result of "unlawful use or consumption." (LYTTON and McDADE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of driving overweight truck on bridge. Evidence was not closely balanced; Defendant admitted he knew his truck weighed about 78,000 pounds and knew bridge weight limit was 46,000 pounds. Thus, no plain error, even though court erred in failing to order discovery at first appearance, as required by local rule. Defendant did not tender discovery request for notes or videotapes, and requested them only in middle of hearing on his motion to suppress, when they had already been destroyed; no showing of bad faith; thus, no denial of due process. Defendant's mention in closing argument that State did not meet its burden was not valid renewal of his motion for directed finding, and failure to renew motion waived error from court's ruling. (CARTER and HOLDRIDGE, concurring.)