Articles Posted in DUI

It you are arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in Illinois, the police, upon having reason to believe you are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, or have any amount of a prohibited substance in your blood, breath or urine, are authorized to ask to you submit to chemical testing to detect the presence of such substances. In the case of alcohol, such tests can be used to ascertain your blood alcohol level (BAL). 625 ILCS 5/11-501.1
The choice of tests is within the discretion of the officer; the accused’s request to provide a type of test different from that which the officer has demanded is deemed a refusal. People v. Kaegebein, 137 Ill. App. 3d 837, 92 Ill. Dec. 656, 485 N.E.2d 467 (2 Dist. 1985) The use of urine tests is normally confined to situations in which the officer believes the accused has drugs in his system, as urine tests do not provide an accurate BAL reading.

Breath tests are, unless the suspect is injured and taken to the hospital, normally used to determine the BAL. If the defendant is taken to the hospital and a physician draws blood for the purpose of medical treatment (“medical draw”) the results are admissible in the DUI prosecution. On the other hand, for the purpose of imposing a statutory summary suspension (“SSS”), the defendant is given the right to refuse.

Chemical tests (blood, breath or urine) that are admissible in the DUI prosecution must be administered under specific procedures, by certified machines and operators. In contrast, for SSS purposes, the officer is authorized to request a portable breath test (“PBT”). The results of such a test, or the refusal, are not admissible in the DUI prosecution. 625 ILCS 5/11-501.5
Every DUI lawyer hears the question, if the opportunity ever presents itself, should I take the test? A “first offender” is someone who has not, in the previous five years, been convicted of, received court supervision for, or incurred a statutory summary suspension arising from, a DUI (unless at the time of the prior offense the offender submitted to chemical testing and was found not guilty of the DUI).

Continue reading →

When you arrested for DUI, there are two potentially negative consequences. The first is criminal.

You can be sentenced to jail if you are convicted of DUI. The consequences of an Illinois DUI arrest are less severe if you are eligible for, and receive, court supervision.

Court supervision is not considered a conviction. Therefore, your driver’s license will not be revoked. In addition, if you receive court supervision, the judge cannot sentence you to jail time.

Supervision for DUI is available only if you have never previously been convicted of DUI, or received court supervision for DUI, or received reckless driving as part of a plea bargain in connection with a DUI charge. Even if you meet all the criteria, you are not automatically entitled to supervision. The final decision about whether someone who is eligible for supervision receives it lies with the judge.

Since supervision is not entered on your driving record as a conviction, you may mistakenly assume that DUI supervision does not “go on your record”. That is only partially accurate.

The Illinois Secretary of State maintains a list of your driving offenses (this is called the “abstract”). There are two types of abstracts, one being known as the “court purposes” abstract and the other the “public” abstract.

The court purposes abstract is accessible only to the police, the judge, the prosecuting attorney and you. This abstract shows any DUI supervision you receive.

It stays on that record forever. It cannot be expunged. The Secretary of State will not remove it even if you obtain a Governor’s pardon. Therefore, it never really “goes away”.

Continue reading →

In Illinois, “driving under the influence” (DUI) is a shortcut term for a legal offense. The phrase may work in casual conversation and in news reports. However, Illinois law defines the offense of DUI in a very specific manner.

In the American judicial system, there are several ways in which laws are made. Our elected representatives can vote to pass laws that are known as “statutes”. For example, the Illinois General Assembly www.ilga.gov voted for a statute banning smoking in public places.

Starting over 500 years ago, English judges were called upon to resolve disputes among the citizenry. Over the years, the judges laid down various rules that were designed to govern a given factual situation.

These judge-made rules are known as the “common law”. Many common law concepts migrated to the United States when the colonists arrived here. Because of the common law, you cannot build a fence on your neighbor’s property.

If the General Assembly does not like the common law, it can vote to change it. Under common law England, for instance, a tenant had almost no rights because a landowner was considered superior to a renter. Now there are many statutes that protect tenants. If your house or apartment burns down, you can stop paying rent. That was not true under the common law.

Neither a statute nor the common law, however, can make a law that is contrary to the United States Constitution. The Constitution plays a particularly significant role in protect the rights of those charged with crimes, including DUI. Thus, any law must be measured against the rights secured to you under the Fourth Amendment (no unreasonable searches or seizures).

There are over 300 million people in this country engaged in billions upon billions of interactions. No Constitution, statute or common law rule can possibly account for all the possible scenarios that are bound to arise in those circumstances. Therefore, judges are called upon to give their best estimate of how a Constitutional provision or statute had intended to address a given situation.

The DUI statute provides that “[a] person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this State while under the influence of alcohol.” It does NOT require the police to prove that they 1) saw you driving 2) a truck, car or motorcycle 3) drunk.

Continue reading →

It has not (yet) reached the point where the police can stop the operator of a motor vehicle for no reason whatsoever. You are protected from “unreasonable searches and seizures“. Judges decide where to draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable searches and seizures.

When you are in your house, the police are generally required to have more evidence before they can search your property and seize (arrest) you. In a motor vehicle, you enjoy a lower level of protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The police cannot stop a citizen just because “you look suspicious”. Courts have held that the police must have specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion that a stop involves. These are known as invesitgatory stops.

If the police directly observe you committing a traffic violation, such as speeding, they are entitled to stop you for a brief enough period to investigate the traffic violation. That is where your troubles can start.

Once they do stop you for a routine traffic offense, they may then further their investigation if they believe you may be driving under the influence of alcohol. Common signs are an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, open containers in the vehicle and difficulty locating your driver’s license, registration or insurance card.

The police are also entitled to investigate if they find you pulled over to the side of the road, or asleep in your vehicle or after you have been involved in an accident, even if the accident was not your fault. They are also, under proper circumstances, permitted to erect DUI roadblocks.

It can be more complicated when the police do not actually observe you committing an offense but have reason to believe that you may have. A citizen’s complaint, from someone whom the police have reasonable grounds to believe is reliable, will justify a stop.

Continue reading →

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures”. An arrest, including a DUI arrest, constitutes a seizure.

If a court (judge) finds that a seizure is unreasonable, the arrest is deemed illegal. For the most part, any evidence gathered as a result of the arrest is also illegal.

Due to United States Supreme Court decisions, the remedy for an illegal arrest is to suppress (“throw out”) the evidence. Without evidence, the state cannot prove its case, resulting in dismissal of the charges. (This is what is meant by “a technicality”).

The Constitution does not specify when a seizure is or is not “unreasonable”, a wise choice since what can be viewed as unreasonable in one time and place can be considered reasonable in another. It is left to the courts to decide where to draw the line.

The Illinois court system has three layers. The first is the trial court. This is what most people consider “court” with judges, juries, and presentation of witnesses and other evidence all playing a part.

The next level, if is either side is unhappy with the decision and has the time and money to take it further, is the appellate court. In Illinois, there are five appellate court districts, broken down by geography. So, for instance, the Fourth Appellate District, whose physical location is in Springfield, would hear an appeal from a Macon County (Decatur) case.

Appellate court cases do not involve either party presenting additional evidence. Instead, the lawyers argue the case based upon the evidence presented at the trial court.

Each of the five appellate courts consists of a three-judge panel that, after hearing the arguments and reading the briefs (papers) of the lawyers, issues a written decision usually published for all to read. All trial court judges are required to follow the rules set out in the published appellate court decisions.

Continue reading →