Illinois DUI Lawyer Blawg

In 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court handed down its decision in People. v. Martin, 2011 IL 109102. The issue involved a fairly technical legal question known as “causation”.

Causation refers the notion that in the criminal law, a person is responsible for the outcome of an event only if the state is able to prove that something he did in an illegal manner caused the outcome. For instance, if your headlight is not operating properly and someone rear ends you, the state cannot say that you were the cause of the collision even though your car was not in proper working order. In other words, your non-functioning headlight, while illegal, was not in any manner responsible for your being hit from behind.

This idea came into play in the Martin because of the manner in which certain DUI laws are written. Under 625 ILCS 5/11-500, you can be charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in a number of ways.

One way is prove you were “under the influence” of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two. Another is to prove that you were driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 or greater. A third is to show that you were under the influence of other intoxicants (huffing for instance).

One can make an argument that if your blood alcohol content is above .08, you are potentially a dangerous driver. The state should not be limited to proving your impairment by reference to your physical condition, actions and conduct at the time of the alleged offense.

Your blood alcohol content alone should be sufficient to show you ought not to have been driving. It would seem that since the purpose of the DUI laws is to keep dangerous drivers off the public roadway, this is a reasonable law.

However, there is one situation in which the state need merely show that you were operating your motor vehicle at a time you had any amount, no matter how small, of a prohibited drug in your system. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(6) Unlike alcohol, which leaves your system relatively quickly, some drugs remain in your body long after (sometime for weeks) you ingested them and well after their presence in your system would impact the mind and body in ways that could make you an unsafe driver.

Continue reading →

Illinois has a law against Driving Under the Influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs. 625 ILCS 5/11-501 and following. Some people are surprised to learn that they can be arrested for DUI in Illinois even if they are involved in a crash in which they are the only ones injured.

There are several different types of DUI in Illinois. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a) provides as follows: (a) A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this State while:
(1) the alcohol concentration in the person’s blood or breath is 0.08 or more based on the definition of blood and breath units in Section 11-501.2 [625 ILCS 5/11-501.2];
(2) under the influence of alcohol;
(3) under the influence of any intoxicating compound or combination of intoxicating compounds to a degree that renders the person incapable of driving safely;
(4) under the influence of any other drug or combination of drugs to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving;
(5) under the combined influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving; or
(6) there is any amount of a drug, substance, or compound in the person’s breath, blood, or urine resulting from the unlawful use or consumption of cannabis listed in the Cannabis Control Act [720 ILCS 550/1 et seq.], a controlled substance listed in the Illinois Controlled Substances Act [720 ILCS 570/100 et seq.], an intoxicating compound listed in the Use of Intoxicating Compounds Act [720 ILCS 690/0.01 et seq.], or methamphetamine as listed in the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act [720 ILCS 646/1 et seq.

Continue reading →

In Illinois, there are several consequences that flow from an arrest for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). The DUI statute, found at 625 ILCS 5/11-501, states, in part, that “(a) A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this State while:
(1) the alcohol concentration in the person’s blood or breath is 0.08 or more based on the definition of blood and breath units in Section 11-501.2;
(2) under the influence of alcohol”;
Therefore, you may be charged with DUI based upon the fact your blood alcohol level (BAL) was .08 or higher. The state is not required to prove that you seemed drunk (staggering, bloodshot eyes, etc).

Quite simply, it is illegal in Illinois to drive with more than .08% alcohol in your system. It is similar to speeding. The police do not have to show that your high speed made you a dangerous driver but simply that you were driving above the posted limit.

You may be tempted to conclude, if I never take the test, they cannot prove what my BAL was and therefore cannot convict me of driving with a BAL above .08. That strategy does carry with it some risks.

Refusing the test prevents the .08 prosecution, but it allows the state to argue you had a “guilty mind”. In other words, if you had nothing to hide, why didn’t you take the test? This could help the state convict you under the second definition of DUI, (part 2 above, “under the influence of alcohol”).

DUI under this section requires the state to prove that you were in fact impaired, since your refusal to submit to testing may be considered by the jury as evidence of a guilty mind 625 ILCS 6/11-501.2; P. v. Rolfingsmeyer, 101 Ill. 2d 137, 77 Ill. Dec. 787 (1984). By not submitting to testing, you forfeit the opportunity to show you were under the legal limit and you provide the state with an argument to use against you at trial.

Refusal of the test also carries with it driver’s license consequences in terms of the statutory summary suspension (SSS). The SSS law is found at 625 ILCS 5/11-501.1 and 625 ILCS 5/6-208 and 208.1

Continue reading →

One of Mike Ditka’s sons, Mark Ditka, was arrested for DUI in Lake County Illinois. This follows closely on the heels of his brother Michael’s DUI arrest last month, his third. Some may recall their father Mike Ditka, former NFL football player, coach and television announcer, was arrested for DUI a few years ago, in the northern part of Illinois.

Michael has two previous DUI violations. Therefore, Illinois prosecutors have charged him with felony DUI in accordance with 625 ILCS 5/11-501 (d). Although his first offense may have resulted in court supervision, which is not a conviction, Michael faces a felony offense due to appellate court case law holding that any prior “violation”, including supervision, counts in determining whether there is a third violation. People v. Bloomberg, 378 Ill. App. 3d 686, 881 N.E.2d 615, 317 Ill. Dec. 447, (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)

Both Michael and Mark have pleaded not guilty. Since DUI is a criminal offense, the state has the burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Shaffer, 134 Ill. App. 3d 548, 89 Ill. Dec. 709, 481 N.E.2d 61 (1 Dist. 1985)

On the other hand, Mark is eligible to receive court supervision. Court supervision is not a conviction. This is important because the Illinois Secretary of State will not revoke your license if you are not convicted of DUI. Therefore, you will not be required to attend a driver’s license hearing.

Continue reading →

Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the state cannot force you to give evidence against yourself (you have “the right to remain silent”; you can “take the Fifth”). Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, you have the right to a lawyer when you are charged with a crime.

A famous case, Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), held that the police must inform you of the right to remain silent, that anything you say may be used against you, that you have the right to consult with attorney before any police questioning and that a lawyer will be appointed if you are unable to afford one. This is often referred to as “reading me my rights”.

The United States Supreme Court reasoned that if someone were not aware of his rights, then having those rights would not be of any use to them. Therefore, Miranda determined that in the proper circumstances, the police are required to inform you of your rights.

In a case known as Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the court had, before the Miranda case, held that if the police violate your constitutional rights, the appropriate remedy is to exclude the evidence that the police gathered illegally. This is knows as the “exclusionary rule”.

Continue reading →