Traffic/DUI

Defendant was charged with DUI after car accident in which she was injured. State petitioned court for order certifying keeper of records (at hospital where Defendant's blood was drawn) as material witness for prosecution. Court denied petition to certify. Appeal is dismissed, as testimony from phlebotomist, state trooper, and ISP lab personnel could suffice to meet foundation requirements for admitting blood-alcohol test results into evidence. (STEELE and SALONE, concurring.)

Defendant, a commercial motor vehicle driver, was charged with aggravated DUI under Illinois Motor Carrier Safety Law (IMCSL), and court granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of breath test administered 4 1/2 hours after arrest. As State did not charge Defendant under the Uniform Commercial Driver's License Act (UCDLA), Section 6-500 of the UCDLA, defining alcohol concentration as per breath test taken within two hours of being stopped, is inapplicable to prosecution under the IMCSL. (WRIGHT, concurring; HOLDRIDGE, specially concurring.)

Court barred at DUI trial results of breath tests, based on alleged improper certification of breath test machines, as they had not been checked and certified within 62 days as required byState Police regulations. Per regulations, breath test machine must be checked at least once every 62 days or it will not be considered accurate. (JORGENSEN, concurring; BOWMAN, dissenting.)

Defendant was arrested for DUI late at night on 9/2. Court properly granted DUI defendant's petition to rescind his statutory summary suspension (SSS). Officer's sworn report failed to establish on its face validity of suspension, because report indicated that notice of SSS was given on 9/2, which was before Defendant completed breath test (in early morning hours of 9/3). (McLAREN and HUTCHINSON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of obstructing a peace officer. State failed to prove Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Officers stopped vehicle at 3 a.m. on New Year's Day because five people were in car. Defendant was front-seat passenger in vehicle driven by his wife who was asked to perform field sobriety tests after officers detected odor of alcohol in car. Defendant had stepped outside of car, which was not an act of obstruction, because officer never told Defendant he had to stay inside the car, but only a brief 21-second interruption of officer's duties. Defendant delayed only 47 seconds, per video, in getting back in car after officer told him to do so, and video contradicted officers' testimony as to course of events. (McLAREN and BOWMAN, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of aggravated DUI. Defendant filed motion to dismiss, arguing that statute required only that he possess a driver's license, not necessarily that he possess a valid drivers license. Issue is whether Defendant, at time of offense, possessed permission from the State to drive. If license was at that time revoked, suspended, or expired, then no such permission existed, and Defendant did not possess a driver's license within meaning of statute. (JORGENSEN and BURKE, concurring.)