Illinois DUI Lawyer Blawg

As any Illinois traffic and DUI lawyer knows, you must signal at least 100 feet before turning in a non-rural area. Failure to do so constitutes a traffic offense.

An arrest in Illinois for DUI often begins with a simple traffic offense. Common violations include speeding, improper lane usage (“weaving” or “swerving”), and disobeying a stop sign or stoplight.

Sometimes, there does not even have to be a traffic violation. If properly designed, police have the right to erect DUI roadblocks.

And even minor violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code can lead to a stop. This can be something as simple as a burned out license plate light, an expired license plate tag, an obstructed windshield (an air freshener hanging from the mirror) or failing to dim your headlights to oncoming traffic.

As a matter of fact, a Springfield Illinois DUI arrest began with the police pulling over the driver for not using his turn signal within 100 feet of an intersection. You probably would not be stopped in broad daylight for failing to use your turn signal. It is possible the police are using this minor offense as a pretext (“excuse”) to investigate a DUI at 11:00 in the evening.

Continue reading →

With St. Patrick’s Day approaching, now is a good time to understand your rights if you are arrested for DUI in Springfield Illinois. Many of these arrests occur when a driver encounters a DUI roadblock. Instead of referring to it as a roadblock, police use the term “roadside safety check”. That sounds so nice; after all, who could object to something done for “safety”?

The federal government encourages these intrusions on your privacy, as most of them are funded from grants through the United Stated Department of Transportation. Last St. Patrick’s Day, Springfield Illinois DUI roadblocks were set up.

Fortunately, in order to protect its citizens from Gestapo-like tactics (“may I see your papers”), the courts have established some ground rules for implementation of the roadblocks. A rogue cowboy cop out on the street cannot decide it’s a good time to establish a DUI roadblock. Rather, a supervisor must select the site for the roadblock.

Furthermore, the supervisor cannot decide at 5:00 in the evening that now is a good time for roadblocks. The intention to establish one must be made apparent to the public in advance. That is why you will often read in the newspaper or hear on the radio or television of the authorities’ intention to set up a roadblock.

Continue reading →

Springfield is the capital of Illinois. As such, many state agency directors operate their motor vehicles in Springfield and surrounding Sangamon County. Warren C. Ribley is the director of the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. Ribley was arrested for DUI in the Springfield area.

According to Leland Grove (a village adjacent to Springfield) police, Ribley initially made an illegal right turn on red. A police officer followed Ribley and paced him traveling 45 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. Finally, the officer claimed that Ribley changed lanes without signaling.

After pulling over Ribley, the officer detected an odor of alcohol on his breath. Ribley refused both standardized field sobriety testing and breath testing. He was then charged with DUI.

Police cannot stop you just because they think you “look suspicious”. Rather, they must have a reason, or they must have roadside safety checks set up with specific requirments about when, where and how they are run.

Continue reading →

John Cullerton is the Majority Leader of the Illinois State Senate. Because of how the Illinois General Assembly operates, this position provides Senator Cullerton with a great deal of authority over Illinois laws, including DUI laws.

Cullerton’s son, Garritt, was arrested for an Illinois DUI last year. The circumstances of Cullerton’s DUI arrest have been previously reported. Recently, Cullerton pled guilty to the DUI. He was sentenced to two years of non reporting probation (knows as conditional discharge), fined $1,250, required to obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation and perform 240 hours of community service, in place of 10 days of jail time.

The above appears to be a standard disposition for someone who has had more than one DUI arrest. The more interesting part of the case involves Cullerton’s overall driving record.

Cullerton has two previous DUI arrests. One of them was dismissed. In the other case, he was granted court supervision.

In a plea of court supervision, you plead guilty to the offense. However, the judge withholds entry of a conviction and later dismisses the case. So while you plead guilty, because you are not convicted, you avoid a driver’s license revocation.

Continue reading →

Former Yankee catcher Jim Leyritz was charged with reckless homicide as a result of a traffic crash in Florida. Both he and the driver of the vehicle with which he collided had blood alcohol levels about the legal limit of .08.

In order to convict Leyritz of reckless homicide, a felony, the prosecutor was required to prove that his intoxication caused the crash. The evidence cast doubt on whether Leyritz or the other driver ran the red light.

Because the jury was unable to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Leyritz ran the red light, he was found not guilty of the reckless homicide charge. Leyritz was found guilty of DUI and sentenced to probation with no jail time.

A DUI charge is criminal in nature. As such, the prosecutor (in Illinois he is referred to as the state’s attorney, not to be confused with the attorney general) must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged committed each part of the offense. In Illinois, the offense consists of 2 parts:

1. That the accused was in actual physical control of a vehicle; and
2. That at the time the accused was in actual physical control of a vehicle, the accused was under the influence of any alcohol or drug or combination of drugs to a degree which rendered the accused incapable of safely driving.

In the Leyritz case, there was no doubt he was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. The proposition in question was whether he was “under the influence” of alcohol to such an extent that he was incapable of driving safely.

Continue reading →