Traffic/DUI

People v. Foltz

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
DUI
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 5-08-0613
Decision Date: 
Monday, August 23, 2010
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
Marion Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
STEWART
Defendant was convicted upon jury verdict of aggravated driving under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs. Insufficient evidence to prove that Defendant had any drugs in his system at time of arrest, as the only evidence of drug use presented at trial was that police officer smelled the odor of burnt cannabis in Defendant's vehicle. Officer lacked necessary experience to provide sufficient testimony that the Defendant was under the influence of drugs, as he had less than two years experience as an officer, this was his first arrest for DUI involving drugs, and he had no specific training in drug recognition. (WELCH and DONOVAN, concurring.)

People v. Kladis

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
DUI
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-09-0686
Decision Date: 
Thursday, July 22, 2010
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 4th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
O'MARA FROSSARD
Defendant was charged with DUI, and court granted Defendant's motion for sanctions against the State for destroying the in-car videotape of Defendant's arrest. Videotape was destroyed by Northlake Police Department, per its 30-day automatic purge policy, even though Defendant had requested of State, within five days of arrest, that it be produced. Court barred State from presenting testimony of arresting officer for the time period contained on the videotape. Defendant relied on State's failure to object to request to produce, and State's agreement to produce tape, and thus Defendant did not issue a subpoena for the tape or request a court order. Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that tape was discoverable and that its destruction after Defendant had requested it was a discovery violation. Sanction was limited and proportionate to the discovery violation. (O'BRIEN and NEVILLE, concurring.)

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valued at $9000, was seized in forfeiture order as a result of Defendant being convicted of driving while his license was revoked for prior DUI conviction.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.