Traffic/DUI

Court granted motion of Defendant, who had been charged with DUI, to rescind statutory summary suspension. Defendant failed to present any evidence, at SSS hearing, that he was not properly advised of potential consequences of refusal to submit to testing, and officer's signed document is accepted as evidence that Defendant was so advised. That officer noticed Defendant's traffic violations of obstructed view and lack of registration light were sufficient to conclude that Defendant was improperly operating his vehicle, and it was Defendant's burden to prove prima facie case for rescission at SSS rescission hearing. (WRIGHT, concurring; HOLDRIDGE, dissenting.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated DUI. One minute footage of video, of Defendant in back of police car after arrest, was played for jury. As Defendant did not object at time of stop when he was informed of recording, his consent to recording is implied, and exemption to eavesdropping statute applies as arrest did not necessarily signal end of investigation. Court properly allowed arresting officer to testify as to his opinions on HGN, as foundation was established as to officer's training and knowledge. (COOK, concurring; APPLETON, specially concurring.)

Deputy's testimony that he observed Defendant's right-side tires cross over fog line twice for a couple of seconds each time while following him, was sufficient, if believed, for deputy to believe that Defendant violated improper-lane-usage statute and to provide him with probable cause to effect initial traffic stop. Evidence of endangerment in violation of improper-lane-usage statute is not essential to finding of probable cause for stop. (WELCH and CHAPMAN, concurring.)

Defendant was charged with DUI, and requested that State produce video of arrest. City had destroyed video a few hours prior to hearing on Defendant's petition to rescind SSS, as videos were purged within 30 days of arrest pursuant to Department policy. Court granted Defendant's motion for sanctions and barred State from introducing testimony relating to what was contained on video. Court was within its discretion in finding that video was subject to discovery and that State committed discovery violation by allowing video to be destroyed. Sanction was appropriate, as State was not precluded from prosecuting Defendant and could have questioned officer about his observations other than what was shown on video. (KILBRIDE, THOMAS, GARMAN, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)