Illinois DUI Lawyer Blawg

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 →