Traffic/DUI

People v. Vente

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
DUI
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (3d) 100600
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Will Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
O'BRIEN
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.)

People v. Schroeder

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Motions to Suppress
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (3d) 110240
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Will Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
McDADE
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.)

People v. Kinney

Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL 113197
Decision Date: 
Thursday, May 24, 2012
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Will Co.
Holding: 
Judgment of mandamus awarded.
Justice: 
KILBRIDE
Defendant pled guilty to DUI in 2009. As this was his fourth DUI conviction, Defendant was charged with aggravated DUI, a nonprobationable Class 2 felony. Court did not consider his third DUI conviction, entered in 2000, for sentence enhancement purposes, as he was without legal counsel for that proceeding, and thus sentenced him to 48 months probation. A valid uncounseled misdemeanor conviction is also valid when used to enhance punishment in a subsequent conviction. (FREDEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

House Bill 196

Topic: 
New traffice fine
(McAuliffe, R-Chicago; Munoz, D-Chicago creates the State Police Merit Board Public Safety Fund that is to be used to provide training for law enforcement personnel. Requires that every person pay $15 to pay for this fund if he or she is convicted of or pleads guilty any criminal or traffic violation or a similar provision of a local ordinance. This is on third reading in the Senate. This is going to be a trend in which State government is moving to funding specific state agencies by assessing fees wherever they are able to get legislation enacted to do so.

Senate Bill 1808

Topic: 
Eavesdropping exemption
(Nekritz, D-Northbrook; Noland, D-Elgin) creates an exemption from prosecution for eavesdropping. It allows a citizen to record a law enforcement officer performing public duties in a public place. If not a "public" place, the exemption doesn't apply. The Seventh Circuit is considering this issue now in ALCU v. Alvarez. Senate Bill 1808 passed out of the House yesterday on a 71-45-1 vote. The Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement organizations still oppose. The roll call is at the link below.

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.)