Articles Posted in DUI

DuPage County is located in Wheaton, Illinois, a Chicago suburb known for being tough on Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offenders. Many politicians from that area have used this attitude to climb the political and judicial ladder.

According to news reports, on August 28, 2011, the defendant in this case was initially stopped for improper lane usage (weaving). 625 ILCS 5/11-709 Weaving is the most common reason that police provide for initiating an investigative stop.

Appeals courts for Wheaton DUI cases had initially held that police may initiate a stop of a driving who is weaving within his own lane, even though that is not illegal. People v. Manders, 317 Ill. App. 3d 337 (2d Dist. 2000) This case was later overruled in People v. Greco, 336 Ill. App 3d 253 (2d Dist. 2003)

The defendant was a first time DUI offender who was charged with a Class-A misdemeanor. A Class-A misdemeanor is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500.00 and/or incarceration in the county jail for up to 364 days. 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-5.5
Because this was his first DUI charge, the accused was eligible to request court supervision and in fact received it. This brings with it several consequences.

The first is that when one is sentenced to court supervision, the judge cannot order jail time. However, a DUI supervision can never be expunged from your record. 730 ILCS 5/5-6-3.1(f).

Continue reading →

The City of Naperville, Illinois, located in both DuPage and Will counties, has agreed to pay a man $10,000.00 for wrongfully arresting him, and then informing the newspaper about his arrest. The victim was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) despite registering 0.00 on a breath test.

The Fourth Amendment to the Unites States Constitution requires the police to have “probable cause” before they may arrest someone. In Terry v. Ohio 392 US 1 (1968), the Untied States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a police encounter with a citizen in public required probable cause.

The Supreme Court held that a brief, limited in scope investigatory stop does not implicate the Fourth Amendment and therefore probable cause need not be present to render a public police encounter with citizens constitutionally valid. To make an initial stop of a citizen, police are only required to have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is about to be, committed. A mere “hunch” of illegal activity is not enough.

In the context of a DUI arrest the normal course of events is for the police to notice a traffic violation, which under Terry is a sufficient basis to initiate a stop. At that point, the police may briefly investigate. You may end up with a simple traffic ticket if there is nothing amiss.

The trouble starts if there are signs of alcohol or drug use, odors, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, difficulty locating your license. Furthering the investigation, based upon these activities, turns the stop into a seizure (arrest) for which the police must establish probable cause.

In the Naperville case, the police violated the Constitution. When the driver registered .00 on the breath test, the DUI investigation should have ended.

Continue reading →

When you have an Illinois DUI (Driving Under Influence), you face two different possible consequences, a suspension of your driver’s license, as well as fines, jail time and a revocation of your driver’s license.

The driver’s license suspension occurs because you either took a breath or blood test and registered .08 or higher, or you declined to submit to such testing upon request. In the first case, your driver’s license would be suspended for 6 months if you have not had a previous DUI arrest for the last 5 years and 12 months if you have had an arrest within the past 5 years.

If you did not agree to testing, your license would be suspended for 1 year if you have not had a DUI in the last 5 years. If you have had a DUI in the previous 5 years, you will suffer a suspension of 3 years. All the rules for breath test suspensions are in 625 ILCS 5/6-208.1
A DUI-related suspension (at times referred to as an “implied consent suspension”) is a temporary license sanction imposed for a definite period of time. Once that time elapses, you are automatically free to drive upon payment of the appropriate fee, provided driving privileges are not invalid for some other reason. 625 ILCS 5/1-204
The other challenge you face relates to the criminal charges associated with the DUI arrest. Here, you can be required to pay fines and or serve jail time. In addition, with a conviction, your driver’s license will be revoked. 625 ILCS 5/6-205(a)(2)

A DUI-related revocation is the withdrawal of driving privileges for a period of 1, 5 or 10 years following a conviction. 625 ILCS 5/1-176 At the end of that period, restoration of an offender’s driving privileges is not automatic. Rather, it is contingent upon a successful hearing with the Illinois Secretary of State, Illinois’ licensing authority. 625 ILCS 5/2-118; 5/6-208
You be have heard about people who are arrested for DUI and driving on a suspended or revoked license. The suspension occurs 46 days after the police serve you with notice of a statutory summary suspension.

Continue reading →

The State Journal-Register, the Springfield Illinois daily, reports that a man was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). The story alleges that the accused drove into a front yard and hit a parked car, after which he left the scene. Police have charged him with aggravated DUI. The article does not lay out the facts that would explain why the DUI was aggravated.

Leaving the scene of a collision involving property damage is a Class-A misdemeanor (625 ILCS 5/11-402) punishable by up to 364 days in the county jail and/or a fine of up to $2,500. In addition, if the damages exceed $1,000.00, the Illinois Secretary of State will suspend the offender’s driver’s license for a period of one year upon conviction 625 ILCS 5/6-206(a)(21)

On the other hand, if a driver is convicted of leaving the scene of an accident in which someone suffers personal injury or death, even if the injury is only to the driver who fled, that person is guilty of a Class 4 felony in accordance with 625 ILCS 5/11-401 The Secretary of State will revoke the convicted person’s driver’s license for a period of one year. 625 ILCS 5/6-205(a)(4)

A revocation differs from a suspension in this respect: once a suspension period ends, the Secretary of State would automatically return your driver’s license upon payment of the reinstatement fee. If you are revoked, you must have a driver’s license hearing with the Secretary of State.

The penalty for leaving the scene is similar to that which a DUI arrest carries. The reason is that it is felt many people flee the scene of an accident because they are attempting to avoid a DUI arrest. Those persons who cause injury and flee should, the thinking goes, explain themselves to the Secretary of State.

Continue reading →

Illinois DUI law provides law enforcement with several different means of demanding blood tests to determine the presence of alcohol or other drugs, including prescription medication, in drivers. These provisions rely upon the concept of ‘implied consent”. In other words, when you choose to operate a motor vehicle upon the public roadways of Illinois, you have indirectly given your consent to be subjected to these tests if certain conditions exist. 625 ILCS 5/11-500 et. seq.

In any DUI arrest situation, the police have the choice to ask you to submit to a blood test. Because of the time and expense involved, if the arresting authorities believe that the cause of your alleged intoxication is alcohol and if there was no accident requiring immediate medical treatment, most likely they will rely upon a breath, rather than blood, test. The results of breath tests are ordinarily immediately available.

On the other hand, not all DUI charges require proof of actual impairment from alcohol, other drugs or prescription medication, or proof that your blood alcohol level (BAL) exceeds .08. These so-called “per se” violations require the police to show that ANY amount of a banned substance is still in your system, even if the amount detected was not enough to impair your driving ability.

Breath tests will not detect drugs. Urine tests will not detect the very small quantities that police may suspect. Proof normally requires a blood test. Absent an accident, you are entitled to refuse to submit to such tests.

Continue reading →

A woman in Carmi, Illinois was recently arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). There are several interesting questions that this article reporting the arrest raises.

The driver was first brought to the attention of the police due to an unidentified citizen’s report, made through a 911 call, of erratic driving. The 911 call alone could, under the proper circumstances, allow the police to stop a driver and investigate a DUI. However, such a stop would be justified only if the caller identified himself or otherwise had presented “indicia of reliability” such as being known as a reliable informant based upon past contact with law enforcement. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 L.Ed.2d 301, 110 S.Ct. 2412 (1990); People v. Ertl, 292 Ill.App.3d 863, 686 N.E.2d 738, 226 Ill.Dec. 955 (2d Dist. 1997)

Thus, in the case of the Carmi woman, the anonymous phone call would not, without any other evidence, be sufficient to justify the police stopping her. On the other hand, the police do have grounds to stop a driver if the officer has a reasonable suspicion the driver has committed, or is about to commit, an illegal act, including traffic offenses. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968)

The phone call brought the driver’s vehicle to the officer’s attention. He then followed the car and claimed to have notice a traffic violation; she made a wide turn and nearly struck oncoming traffic. It is significant to keep in mind that the officer’s observation of a traffic violation need not be correct, so long as he held a good faith belief in its validity.

Thus, a parade of witnesses testifying that there was no wide turn would not present a defense to the initial stop if the officer was able to testify convincingly that he believed he saw the driver make a wide turn. By contrast, if the officer believed that the driver had committed an illegal act but the act was not in fact illegal, the stop would not be justified. People v. Cole, 369 Ill.App.3d 960, 874 N.E.2d 81, 314 Ill.Dec. 171 (4th Dist. 2007)

Continue reading →

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 →