Traffic/DUI

Defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court finding her guilty of violating a municipal ordinance. Defendant argued on appeal that she was denied the opportunity to plead guilty without having to appear because the information contained on the citation was incorrect and that the citation failed to identify the nature of the offense, which impeded her ability to prepare a defendant. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the defendant ultimately had the opportunity to plead guilty and that the citation sufficiently notified her of the nature of the charge. (HUTCHINSON and SCHOSTOK, concurring)

State appealed from trial court order granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence discovered in conjunction with a traffic stop, arguing that the odor of cannabis alone constituted probable cause to search the vehicle. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the officer had probable because she did not rely on the odor of cannabis alone, but only searched the vehicle after one of the occupants admitted to possessing cannabis. The court further commented that it was not persuaded by defendant’s argument that the odor of cannabis alone cannot establish probable cause to search a vehicle because the Vehicle Code requires that cannabis be transported in an odor-proof container. (CAVANAGH and HARRIS, concurring)

State appealed from a trial court order granting defendant’s motion for an automatic rescission of defendant’s suspended driving privileges subsequent to a DUI ticket on the basis that the hearing was not held within 30 days from the date of the filing of the petition to rescind and that 34 days of delay were attributable to the State. The State argued on appeal that the defendant invited error when he agreed to a hearing date beyond the 30-day deadline and that the days attributed to the State should have been attributed to the defendant. Defendant argued that the State had forfeited its invited-error argument. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that at least some of the delay was improperly attributed to the State so that automatic rescission was not proper and declining to find that the State forfeited its invited-error argument. (JORGENSEN and KENNEDY, concurring)