Illinois DUI Lawyer Blawg

Those who are arrested for DUI in Illinois are subject to detention until a cash bond is posted. The purpose of the bond is to ensure the defendant’s return to court. If the defendant fails to appear at any court date, the cash bond will be forfeited and the judge will thereafter issue an arrest warrant.

The sheriff may make an active effort to locate the defendant. Even short of that, the defendant is subject to arrest at any time thereafter in the event he or she has future contact with the police.

Even if the initial purpose of the contact is not related to serving the warrant, if the police run a warrant check upon contact, something they ordinarily do, the defendant will be taken to jail as a result of the active warrant, since a warrant is a court order.  There is no statute of limitations for a warrant and no jurisdictional restriction. In other words, a person who has an active warrant can be hauled to jail at any time and from anywhere in the country until the warrant is served or a judge quashes it.

Continue reading →

As a result of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling, a driver who is charged with driving while suspended based upon a Statutory Summary Suspension that is later rescinded can be convicted of the driving while suspended charge. Defendant David K. Elliott was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) on August 26, 2009. (625 ILCS 5/11-501)  At that time, the arresting officer also served Defendant with a notice of Statutory Summary Suspension (SSS) of his driver’s license and driving privileges. (625 ILCS 5/11-501.1) In accordance with that same provision, the SSS became effective forty-six days later, or October 11, 2009.

On September 1, 2009, within the ninety days allotted by law in which to do so (625 ILCS 5/2-118.1), the Defendant filed a petition to rescind the SSS.  However, because the SSS is “summary” in nature, the mere filing of the petition to rescind does not stay its commencement.  (People v. Trainor, 156 Ill. App. 3d 918, 109 Ill. Dec. 746, 510 N.E.2d 614 (4 Dist. 1987))

On October 13, 2009, two days after the SSS commenced, the Defendant was arrested for driving on a suspended license in violation of 625 ILCS 5/6-303.  On October 19, 2009, the trial judge entered an order granting the Defendant’s petition to rescind the SSS.

On October 23, 2009, the Illinois Secretary of State entered an order of rescission of the SSS, thereby clearing the suspension off the Defendant’s driving record.  Subsequently, the Defendant moved to dismiss the driving while suspended charge, arguing that because the SSS had been rescinded, the driving while suspended charge lacked a legal basis. Continue reading →

The director of a social service agency in Champaign received court supervision following an arrest for Driving Under the Influence (DUI).  Reports indicated that the probable cause for initially stopping the driver was excessive speed.

It may come as a surprise that speeding is not one of the leading traffic violations that are a precursor to a DUI arrest.  Driving too slowly, a wide turn, and improper lane usage are some of the more common offenses that suggest imparied driving, according to the DUI Detection Guide.

Once the driver was stopped, the officer noticed alcohol on his breath.  At that point, the officer administered the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST).  This test is made up of three components.

The first is the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus.  In this test, the person administering the test waves a pen or other objecting in front of the subject in a certain fashion. While doing so, the officer scores the driver’s performance.  The test allegedly can detect alcohol impairment based upon how the eyes react.

Following this is the Walk and Turn. In this test, the subject must follow a very specific set of instructions that only marginally mimic walking.  The test subject must begin by putting the right foot forward and then, while staying on a completely imaginary line, take nine steps down, touch “heel to toe” while walking. On the ninth step, the subject must take a few small steps (not pivot) to the left and walk back. Continue reading →

Britt Miller, age 27, was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in Decatur Illinois.  Miller had signed autographs and raffled sports memorabilia during a Super Bowl party at a restaurant located in his hometown of Decatur.  At about 2:00 AM on the night after the Super Bowl, police stopped him, initially for driving the wrong way.  Subsequent observations of the arresting officer led the police to investigate and later arrest Miller for DUI, illegal transportation (open container), no proof of insurance and failure to use a seat belt.

The DUI law is 625 ILCS 5/11-501. In an alcohol-related DUI, a driver may be charged with DUI based upon alcohol-impaired driving or with driving at a blood alcohol level (BAL) above the legal limit.

In all fifty states, the legal limit above which you are assumed to be under the influence of alcohol is .08%. This measures the percent of alcohol in your blood and is by law considered to be too drunk to be driving.  At that level, it becomes the defendant’s burden to show he was not under the influence.

In addition, however, if the state is able to prove that someone was driving with a BAL of at least .08, that in and of itself is proof of DUI, regardless of any evidence the driver presents that he or she was not impaired. This is known as a “per se” law.

Continue reading →

Background:

In the case of People v. Butorac, 2013 IL App (2d) 110953, an Illinois appellate court examined the rights of a boater who was subject to a warrantless entry and search of his boat while he was boating on it.

The Court held that because of the unique nature of boating, a substantially relaxed Fourth Amendment protection allowed conservation officers to search and seize a boat and its operator, following which the operator was arrested for Boating Under the Influence.

Section 2-2(a) of the Boat Registration and Safety Act (“Act”) (625 ILCS 45/2-2(a) (West 2010)) permits law enforcement officers to “board and inspect any boat at any time” in order to investigate if the occupants are complying with the Act.  Timothy Butorac was boating on a portion of the Fox River located between Elgin and St. Charles, in suburban Chicago Illinois.

Upon making contact with Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) conservation officers, Butorac was charged with, and eventually convicted of, operating a watercraft while under the influence of alcohol, contrary to 625 ILCS 45/5-16(A)(1)(b) (West 2010).  He appealed, asserting that the Act, as applied to his circumstances, was unconstitutional under the United States and Illinois Constitutions, both of which prohibit “unreasonable searches and seizures”.  In a 2-1 decision, the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, ruled that it was not and affirmed his conviction.

Facts:

DNR officers stopped the defendant’s boat on the Fox River solely based upon section 2-2(a) of the Act. The defendant was doing nothing suspicious at the time.

At the point where the officers stopped defendant, the river is about 200 yards wide and is surrounded on both ends by two dams, which are approximately 6 ½ miles away from one another. It is one of the more popular boating areas on the Fox River. There are no lane lines or buoy markers.  Continue reading →

The Illinois court system consists of three layers. The first is the trial court, which is situated in the downtown area of all of Illinois’ 102 counties.

A single judge presides over a trial. In most cases, including Illinois DUI cases, a jury trial is available.

In that instance, the judge’s job is to rule what evidence the jury will and will not be allowed to hear and to instruct the jury on what the law is. The jury then decides how the facts as the jurors interpret them will be applied to the law.

A trial without a jury is known as a “bench trial”.  The judge (who sits on the bench) decides all questions of law and of fact.

Cases may not even reach the trial stage. In DUI cases, the defendant may attempt to suppress (throw out) evidence the state wishes to use against him or her on that basis that it was obtained in contravention of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Continue reading →