Traffic/DUI

People v. 1998 Lexus GS 300

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
DUI
Forfeiture
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-09-0444
Decision Date: 
Monday, June 14, 2010
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HALL
Defendant's 1998 Lexus GS, valued at $9000, was seized in forfeiture order as a result of Defendant being convicted of driving while his license was revoked for prior DUI conviction. Irrelevant that Defendant had participated in alcohol rehabilitation and was not impaired by drugs or alcohol while driving during revocation; legislature has treated driving while revoked for prior DUI is one of the most serious driving offenses absent bodily injury. Forfeiture of vehicle was not grossly disproportionate to offense. (PATTI and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

Public Act 96-1016

Topic: 
Red-light camera reform
(Cullerton, D-Chicago; D’Amico, D-Chicago) makes several changes to the use of red-light cameras that give tickets automatically. (1) Requires that a law-enforcement officer (or retired one) must review and approve all determinations by a technician that a car committed a red-light camera violation. (2) Governments are prohibited from charging an additional fee to an alleged violator for exercising his or her right to an administrative hearing. In other words, no “trial tax.” (3) The motorist must also be given at least 25 days after an administrative hearing to pay any civil penalty. (4) Requires governments that produce a recorded image of a red-light camera violation to make those images accessible to the motorist on a website address on the Internet. (5) Prohibits a red-light violation if the motorist moves past the stop line or cross walk if the vehicle comes to a complete stop and does not enter the intersection. But it appears to create an exception to this prohibition if there pedestrians or bicyclists present. Effective January 1, 2011.

Public Act 96-1002

Topic: 
Traffic law
Cullerton, D-Chicago; D’Amico, D-Chicago) does two things. (1) Makes it a Class B misdemeanor to be convicted of speeding more than 30 miles per hour but less than 40 miles per hour above the speed limit. (2) Prohibits the court from awarding supervision to a driver for driving more than 40 miles per hour or more above the speed limit (Class A misdemeanor). Effective January 1, 2011.

House Bill 43

Topic: 
Pedestrians
(Arroyo, D-Chicago; Steans, D-Chicago) requires vehicles to stop and yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk (instead of yielding the right-of-way by slowing down or stopping if need be) if traffic signs are not in place. Makes the same change for school days when children are present and so close that a potential hazard exists because of the close proximity of the motorized traffic and the traffic signals are not in place or in operation. Sent to the Governor.

People v. Maldonado

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
DUI
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 2-08-0471
Decision Date: 
Monday, June 7, 2010
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
DuPage Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and vacated in part; remanded.
Justice: 
HUTCHINSON
DUI statute is ambiguous because it prescribes mutually exclusive sentencing schemes for a defendant who has been convicted of committing a sixth or subsequent DUI. Under rule of lenity, such defendant must be sentenced for Class 1 felony, under subsection (c-1)(4), not subsection (c-16), of DUI statute.

Senate Bill 3796

Topic: 
Traffic law
(Cullerton, D-Chicago; D’Amico, D-Chicago) does two things. (1) Makes it a Class B misdemeanor to be convicted of speeding more than 30 miles per hour but less than 40 miles per hour above the speed limit. (2) Prohibits the court from awarding supervision to a driver for driving more than 40 miles per hour or more above the speed limit (Class A misdemeanor). Passed both chambers.

Senate Bill 3732

Topic: 
DUI
(Crotty, D-Oak Forest; Mell, D-Chicago) allows the secretary of state to suspend the driver's license of a suspected DUI offender for one year for failing to submit to a chemical test if the driver was in a motor vehicle accident that caused serious personal injury or death to another. Passed both chambers.

Senate Bill 3732

Topic: 
DUI
(Crotty, D-Oak Forest; Mell, D-Chicago) allows the secretary of state to suspend the driver's license of a suspected DUI offender for failing to submit to a chemical test if the driver was in a motor vehicle accident that caused serious personal injury or death to another. It will also cause disqualification of the driver's license to drive a commercial motor vehicle if the person is a CDL holder. 'The driver does have a right to a judicial hearing after a summary revocation and may apply to have his or her driving privileges reinstated after one year after revocation and provides for license reinstatement fees.

The City of Wheaton v. Loerop

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
DUI
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 2-08-0454
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
DuPage Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HUDSON
Defendant entered open plea of guilty to DUI per City ordinance, sentenced to 1 year court supervision and $750 fine, which was minimum fine allowed under City Code. Defendant appealed imposition of fine, arguing that City cannot impose a minimum fine when applicable state laws do not provide a minimum fine. City's law does not conflict with state laws, which do not provide for minimum fine, and is thus allowable as it does not infringe upon spirit of state law and is not repugnant to state's general policies.

People v. Marshall

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Motions to Suppress
Witnesses
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-08-1242
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2nd Div.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
CUNNINGHAM
After bench trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of felony driving while revoked, as his license had been revoked for DUI conviction, and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. At trial witness testified that she had been driving vehicle, then had acid reflux episode so she and Defendant switched seats after pulling over onto side of road, when police officer activated his flashing lights, and approached car because car was in "no parking" zone. Officer lacked grounds to make Terry stop, as Defendant and witness never left vehicle unoccupied, officer did not inquire why pulled off road, and officer showed authority by activating lights; thus, unlawful seizure. Defendant's counsel was ineffective by failing to move to suppress Defendant's driver's license, which was obtained per unlawful seizure.