Traffic/DUI

Failure to indicate, on the arresting officer's Sworn Report, the manner by which Defendant was given notice of his statutory summary suspension (whether by immediate service or by notice via mail) is not a defect warranting rescission of his suspension. (BOWMAN, concurring; McLAREN, dissenting.)

Police officer sprayed Defendant with pepper spray while arresting him for DUI, and Defendant was then taken to hospital for treatment of eye. Blood was drawn for testing of heart issues, and court ordered hospital to release blood samples for blood alcohol testing by ISP lab; testing was done three weeks after arrest. Court properly barred use of BAC evidence, finding that blood had not been collected and stored per Administrative Code regulations requiring that blood collection tubes contain preservatives. Issue of failure to comply with that regulation requires inquiry into scientific basis for it. Defendant made no speedy-trial demand, and thus no speedy trial period, for either initial charges or later-brought BAC charge, could run. (BOWMAN and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of DUI, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and unlawful possession of cannabis. Officer stopped Defendant's vehicle because of broken taillight and air freshener hanging from rearview mirror which would obstruct Defendant's view. Court properly denied motion to suppress evidence and motion to rescind statutory summary suspension (SSS). Air freshener, 3 inches by 4 to 5 inches and swaying side to side, hung by elastic string two inches below the mirror, was a material obstruction based on its placement in vehicle and in relation to Defendant's eye level, thus justifying traffic stop. (POPE, concurring; APPLETON, dissenting.)

Defendant, charged with DUI, first demanded trial, and then 3 1/2 months later was absent from scheduled court date. After bond forfeiture warrant was issued, Defendant appeared the next day and stated that she mixed up the court dates, and demanded a speedy trial 2 1/2 months later. New speedy trial period began on date of Defendant's last demand, speedy trial term was not tolled, and her rights to speedy trial were not violated. A defendant's failure to appear in court operates as waiver to prior demand for speedy trial, regardless of whether failure to appear is "explained" or "unexplained". (R. GORDON and GARCIA, concurring.)

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.)