Articles Posted in DUI

Most drivers recognize that it is illegal, in all 50 states, to commit the offense of Driving Under the Influence, commonly referred to as DUI. 625 ILCS 5/11-501 This offense occurs when there is specific evidence of impaired driving caused by alcohol. However, it can also apply if there is proof that the driver had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 8% alcohol per 210 liters of breath or 8% alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. 625 ILCS 5/11-501.2

DUI is a crime because if the state can prove the driver guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the driver faces a fine of up to $2,500 and up to 364 days in jail upon being convicted of a first offense in which there are no aggravating factors. Furthermore, a conviction will lead to an automatic termination of the offender’s driver’s license and driving privileges. Those privileges, once revoked, can only be restored through a driver’s license hearing with the Illinois Secretary of State.

There are waiting periods before a driver can apply for restoration of full driving privileges. The waiting periods are longer the more DUI and driving while revoked or suspended offenses the driver has on his or her record and are also lengthened if the driver is offered a breath or blood test and declines to take it.

In some circumstances, the driver may apply for a Restricted Driving Permit (RDP) while the revocation is in effect. If the driver has not had a DUI charge in the previous five years, he or she may apply to the Secretary of State for an RDP thirty days after the revocation begins, unless the driver is under 21 or unless this is the second conviction for DUI. In either of those cases, there is a one-year waiting period.

Continue reading →

In Illinois, the clerk of the circuit court serves, for the most part, as the record keeper for the judges. The circuit clerk should not be confused with the county clerk, who maintains, among other things, voting records, birth and death certificate and other personal information.

As far as an Illinois DUI is concerned, a critical function of the circuit clerks is to report DUI convictions to the Illinois Secretary of State. 625 ILCS 5/6-204 Once the Secretary of State is notified of a DUI outcome, his job is to record it to the driver’s Illinois driving record, which is known as a driving “abstract”.

At this point, one caveat is appropriate. The clerk does not report dismissed tickets to the Secretary of State. So if for instance you are charged with speeding and you successfully contest the ticket, either by being found not guilty or persuading the judge to dismiss the charge without a trial, the Secretary of State would have no record of your ever being charged.

The situation can be different with a DUI charge. That’s because when you are arrested for possible DUI, there are two tracks to the case.

You will be charged with DUI, which is a criminal offense, meaning that you can be sent to jail and or be fined. The lowest level of DUI charge can result in a fine of up to $2,500 or 364 days in the county jail, or both.

If the DUI charge is dismissed, the fact you were charged will not show up on your abstract. However, when you are arrested for DUI, you may also incur a driver’ license suspension in connection with the outcome of the request by the police officer that you submit to a chemical test, either of your breath or blood. 625 ILCS 5/11-501.2
If there is a test and the results are at least .08 or if you are asked to test and refuse, your license will be suspended for a period of time that ranges from 6 months to 3 years. This suspension is called a “statutory summary suspension” or SSS.

The SSS is automatic unless you obtain a court order that rescinds (removes) it from your record. Absent this rescission, the SSS stays in effect even if the DUI is thrown out.

That is due to the fact that the SSS is an administrative sanction (it only impairs your license, not your money or freedom and it’s only temporary) so the state does not have to prove you guilty of the DUI. The mere fact you had a .08 or higher or refused to blow is all they need.

Continue reading →

In all likelihood, the vast majority of police officers are honest people trying to do their jobs. They may have a different take as far as the specifics of a particular arrest for DUI are concerned and sometimes they may be mistaken. But for the most part, they call it as they see it.

Unfortunately, on occasion, a police officer appears to be predisposed to making a DUI arrest when none is justified. This may occur due to past encounters between the accused and the officer, a long standing personal history, racial animus or any of the other reasons that some people in power abuse it.

There are numerous opportunities for a dishonest cop to exaggerate, distort and even fabricate evidence and observations. In many cases, it comes down to the word of the accused versus the officer.

The officer has two advantages: First of all, he carries a badge. The other is that he, unlike the person arrested, the assumption is that he has no dog in the hunt, in other words, he is neutral.

Close examination of a DUI arrest shows the stages at which evidence is gathered and can be manipulated. The police must have some reason to come into contact with a driver in the first place, unless there is a roadblock/safety check, in which case specific safeguards must be in place in terms of the timing and execution of the roadblock.

Police may also stop a driver based upon an anonymous tip provided they can prove to the judge that the tipster was “reliable”. People. v. Hansen, 2012 Il. App (4th) 110603 Another encounter can occur when the police are executing a “community caretaker function” such as helping a driver with a flat tire.

Continue reading →

Illinois law prohibits Driving Under the Influence (DUI). 625 ILCS 5/11-501 In terms of alcohol, this prohibition takes two forms.

The first form of Illinois DUI law makes it illegal to drive under the influence. In these types of case, the prosecutor must prove that as a result of consuming alcohol, the accused was impaired in his ability to operate a motor vehicle.

At times, this can be difficult to prove, despite an array of tools that the courts and General Assembly have made available to law enforcement, such as standardized field sobriety tests, the preliminary breath test, the presumption that if you refuse a test, it is evidence of a “guilty mind” and a general relaxation of a defendant’s rights under the United States and Illinois constitutions. Therefore, the DUI laws have been repeatedly altered to stack the deck even further against the defendant.

There is a second type of DUI, known as “per se” because the State does not have to prove that your driving is impaired due to alcohol. it is automatically assumed that you are guilty of DUI if the prosecutor is able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that your blood alcohol content (BAL) was .08 or higher when you were operating a motor vehicle.

There are purported safeguards built into the process to ensure that the machine that calibrates your BAL is accurate and is administered by someone properly certified by the Illinois State Police to do so. 20 Illinois Administrative Code Part 1286. These rules establish the police training, lab procedures, breath test certification and sampling protocol that relate to the breath test.

However, courts have bent over backwards to let in evidence that is not properly documented. Thus, despite the clear requirement that police maintain a log of breath test results, courts have let the police off the hook when the log cannot be produced. People v. Claudio 371 Ill. App. 3d 1067 (2007)

Continue reading →

The offense of Driving Under the Influence is also known as DUI. Illinois DUI law provides that driving under the influence of alcohol is a crime. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) In this type of DUI charge, the prosecutor will attempt to prove that your ability to act with reasonable care is impaired due to the consumption of alcohol.

Just as any competent person is able to do, a police officer can give opinion testimony about intoxication. This includes physical manifestations of intoxication, such as slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, poor balance, difficulty following directions and saying the same thing, or asking the same question, repeatedly.

Non physical manifestations of intoxication include extreme moods (crying or argumentative), confusion as to current location, destination, time and day, disheveled appearance (clothing messed up) and difficulty performing basic tasks such as locating and or removing a driver’s license, insurance card or proof of registration.

Furthermore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) training manual for DWI detection identifies twenty cues of intoxication that police are trained to know. The most common cue is an overly wide turn.

NHTSA has also devised a set of three standardized tests that, according to NHTSA, are designed to demonstrate that a subject is over the legal limit for safe driving. These are known as the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST).

The first test administered is the Horizontal Gaze Nystagumus (HGN). In this test, the officer administering the test waves a pencil in front of your eyes. The reaction of your eyes supposedly gives clues as to whether you are intoxicated. As is the case with all the SFST, the results of the HGN are based upon the officer’s subjective interpretation of the tests.

Continue reading →

The United States Supreme Court, in a case known as McNeely v. Missouri, issued an important decision related to Driving Under the Influence, or DUI, and search warrants. The Court decided that in most cases, before the police can force a DUI suspect to give blood, they must obtain a search warrant.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It further states that no search warrant shall issue without probable cause.

In essence, the government cannot search you or your home without a warrant issued by a judge. The judge should not issue the warrant unless the police provide evidence to the judge that there is some good reason to approve the warrant and authorize a search.

There are many exceptions to the warrant requirement. A number of the exceptions apply to motor vehicle stops, including DUI arrests.

Exceptions to the warrant requirement include searches made during an arrest (police can pat you down for weapons in the process of an arrest) and searches in which the police are already in legitimate contact with you and observe something “in plain view” (stopped for a traffic ticket; during the stop, the police see an open container on the floorboard). In addition, searches done with your consent (do you mind if I search your trunk? No go right ahead) and “stop and frisk” searches (officer observes what appears to be a street corner drug transaction and approaches the suspect to question him and then pats him down for weapons) do not require a warrant.

Another exception applies to emergency situations, where the evidence can be easily moved, destroyed or otherwise made to disappear before a warrant can be issued (drugs flushed down the toilet). This exception was pertinent to the McNeely decision.

Continue reading →

The charge of driving under the influence, or DUI, carries with it criminal penalties as well as consequences on a driver’s license. While a first DUI is serious and a second is more so, it only gets worse when you have a prior conviction for reckless homicide in connection with the operation of a motor vehicle on your record.

For years, a DUI that resulted in death was charged under the Criminal Code (720 ILCS 5/9-3) as reckless homicide in the operation of a motor vehicle. The law as written assumed that if you were under the influence of alcohol and you killed someone, your conduct was reckless.

In People v. Pomykala, 203 Ill. 2d 198, 784 N.E.2d 784, 271 Ill. Dec. 230 (2003), the Illinois Supreme Court held that this presumption violated the constitution by improperly shifting the burden to the defendant of proving that he was not guilty. This was the second occasion on which the Supreme Court had ruled the statute was unconstitutional.

In response, the Illinois General Assembly created a new category of DUI offenses known as aggravated DUI. One form of aggravated DUI involves a DUI committed during which one or more people die. 625 ILCS 11-501(d)

Prosecutors in McHenry County Illinois recently charged a driver who had served 12 years in prison for reckless homicide, for which he was currently on parole, with a DUI offense. The allegation, as yet unproven, is that the driver was under the influence of prescription medication.

The DUI law has six categories of driving under the influence. The first is driving with an alcohol concentration of .08 or greater. Category number two is driving under the influence (used when there is no evidence of an alcohol concentration).

A third category of DUI is driving under the influence of intoxicating compounds to an extent that it renders you incapable of driving safely. If they influence your driving, you may be charged with DUI. Examples would be sniffing glue or “huffing” gases.

Continue reading →

In many instances, an Illinois driving under the influence, or DUI is won or lost based upon the trier of fact (the judge or jury) receiving the results of a breath test. By way of background, there are two types of breath tests that a driver suspected of driving under the influence (DUI) will face.

At the roadside, the police will first administer a series of standardized field sobriety tests. These are physical tests that purportedly correlate with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of at least .08.

A BAC of .08 is the minimum level at which the law assumes you are under the influence of alcohol. 625 ILCS 5/11-501.2 This figure represents how much alcohol has entered your bloodstream, the point at which alcohol negatively effects those parts of the brain that regulate skills related to driving, such as vision, judgment and reaction time.

Furthermore, at the roadside, the officer will also ask you to blow into a handheld device. This is known as a preliminary breath test (PBT). The results of this test are not evidence of your BAC but are merely a tool to help the police determine whether to arrest you for DUI. 625 ILCS 5/11-501.5
Following the arrest for DUI, the police will ask you to submit to a chemical test to determine your BAC. The chemical test is the “official” test, as the results of it are admissible to prove your BAC, Unlike the field sobriety tests, the chemical tests are considered direct evidence of your blood alcohol content.

The chemical test is usually administered at the police station, although there are certain testing machines that are certified for use in the field. Unlike the PBT devices, these machines, as well as any machines that produce “official” results, are subject to certain certification requirements. Likewise, the operator of the machines must be certified and the method of administering the tests is also regulated by law. 625 ILCS 5/11-501.2

Continue reading →

In addition to making Driving Under the Influence (DUI) illegal, Illinois DUI law also has a class of offenses known as “aggravated” DUI. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(d) Aggravated DUI is a standard DUI with certain factors that the General Assembly has determined make it “worse” than standard DUI.

Aggravating factors include a third or subsequent DUI “violation”. In most instances, adverse actions under the Illinois Vehicle Code require a conviction. In those situations, other than when dealing with the law pertaining to Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLS), supervision is thus not a factor in the equation.

However, in order to receive court supervision, you must admit that you committed the violation. Therefore, since the aggravated DUI law requires only a violation as opposed to a conviction, supervision does count.

Another aggravating factor is that in committing a DUI, the person caused a motor vehicle accident that resulted in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement to another. Someone who has previously been convicted of reckless homicide in the operation of a motor vehicle in which alcohol was a factor, or who was previously convicted of aggravated DUI involving death or an accident that resulted in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement to another is also guilty of aggravated DUI.

There are also DUI enhancements where the driver was DUI and was involved in an accident while operating in a school speed zone that caused injury to any other person or the DUI driver was in an accident that caused injury to an occupant under the age of 16.

Continue reading →

An Illinois motorist was arrested for DUI in suburban Chicago. Nothing unusual about that but much of the media is in high dudgeon because there is evidence he was traveling 142 MPH.

The defendant lost control of the 2008 Dodge Charger he was operating, struck a curb and flipped and rolled the car. Police came to the scene, and after observing the motorist, suspected he might have been driving under the influence.

He performed standardized field sobriety tests (SFST) which he failed. First among the tests that he was administered was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN).

Based upon what can only loosely be called “science”, an officer waves a pencil or other small object across the driver’s face. Based upon the officer’s subjective observations of how the accused’s eyes “track” the movement of the object, the officer “scores” the results and decides whether the driver “passed”.

Even if the officer performs every single step of the multi-step process perfectly correctly and even if he is 100% accurate in interpreting the results, the test is less than 70% accurate in estimating if the test subject’s BAC is above the legal driving limit of .08. Any mistakes in the administration or interpretation of the test can only serve to reduce its accuracy.

And nobody other than the officer has an opportunity to view his observations and interpretations. The judge and jury only see a video in which a policeman is moving a pencil in front of someone’s eyes. Yet this test is the first step in what will no doubt culminate in a DUI arrest.

The second SFST is the walk-and-turn, commonly referred to as “walking a straight line”. But under testing protocol, the straight line is imaginary. Under testing protocol, the slightest deviation from the very strict protocol is scored against you. For instance, if instead of marching on your right foot as you turn around, you pivot, as any normal person would, it is marked against you.

The only person injured in this accident was the fool driver. It was his first offense, which rendered him eligible for court supervision. The judge cannot order jail time if he decides that supervision is an appropriate disposition. While the BAC and the speed were high, this outcome is defensible.

Continue reading →