Traffic/DUI

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)