FREE ILLINOIS DUI CASE EVALUATION

Recent Cases Which May Be Helpful In Your Defense Of An Illinois DUI

State v. Schmidt:
State is required to furnish defendants in misdemeanor cases with a list of witnesses, any confession of the defendant, evidence negating the defendant's guilt, and results of the breathalyzer test.

State v. Orth:
If you took a breathalyzer test, the prosecutor must show that the tests were performed according to clearly set-forth written requirements, or its results cannot be admitted as evidence in a hearing youšve requested to cancel the summary suspension of your driver's license.

In re Trainor:
Your Summary Suspension Hearing must be held within 30 days of written request or else your suspension will be lifted, unless the delay in holding this hearing is caused by the defendant.

People v. Gerke:
Summary Suspension Hearing must be held within 30 days of filing written request or the first appearance date on the traffic citation issued to motorist.

People v. Schaffer:
Summary Suspension hearing covers issues of whether person was placed under arrest for certain specified offenses, whether officer had reasonable grounds to believe that person was driving under the influence of alcohol, and whether person refused to submit to test upon request of law enforcement officer.

State v. Fitterrer:
Your license will automatically be suspended beginning 46 days after the arresting officer issues you an on-the-scene notice.

People v. Boomer:
While proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required, mere suspicion is insufficient to demonstrate probable cause for arrest. Trial court is not required to find probable cause to arrest for DUI based solely on the odor of alcohol.

People v. Taliaferro:
State can not prove DUI charge beyond a reasonable doubt when automobile was not running at time of arrest and no keys to the vehicle were found.

People v. Jacquith:
In a case involving a charge of driving under the combined influence of drugs and alcohol, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not only under the influence of alcohol, but also under the influence of another drug as well.

People v. Foster:
Defendant’s admission alone that he was the driver of the vehicle is not enough to prove the driving element of the DUI charge.

People v. Collins:
In order for a police officer to stop a vehicle, he/she has to have reasonable suspicion that there had been a violation of the law. In this case, the officer did not issue a traffic citation for improper lane usage, therefore there was no basis for the initial stop.

People v. Haney:
Breath test result held inadmissible where defendant drank water during twenty minute observation period immediately before breath test.

People v. Osborn:
Motorist entitled to rescission of statutory summary suspension where immediate notice of suspension was not given.

People v. Lahr:
Arrest by police officer outside of his jurisdiction is not valid as a “citizens arrest” where that officer used the powers of his office (radar) to make that arrest.

People v. Smolinski:
At a license suspension hearing, once motorist makes a prima facie case that his breath test result did not disclose a BAC in excess of the legal limit, the State can avoid rescission only by moving for the admission of the test result into evidence after laying the proper foundation. Motorist can make his prima facie case by any circumstance which tends to cast doubt on the test’s accuracy, including credible testimony by motorist that he was not under the influence.

People v. Koutsakis:
Defendant has right to radio dispatch transmission tapes. Destruction of tapes, even if not done in bad faith, may lead to imposition of sanctions by Court in the form of limiting testimony of officers.

People v. Palacios:
License suspension of motorist rescinded where notice of suspension did not include date of notice of suspension.

People v. Vandant:
The State failed to produce any evidence that defendant was under the combined influence of alcohol and insulin, where the arresting police officer--who testified that alcohol would affect a diabetic’s blood sugar level which in turn would affect a person’s coordination and ability to think clearly--was not qualified to give expert testimony on the complex physiological effects that alcohol produced in diabetics.

People v. Adams:
Stop of vehicle by police officers on “city sticker detail” is unconstitutional because State presented insufficient evidence showing that the checkpoint was authorized and selected by policy-level or politically accountable officials, was operated according to sufficiently specific standardized, preexisting guidelines to limit officer discretion, was operated in a safe manner, was publicized clearly in advance, and was actually effective in advancing the interest in question.

People v. Shelton:
When the State attempts to qualify a police officer as a drug recognition expert (DRE), that police officer must testify as to the effect of the particular drug on the body. Testimony only about the officer’s training at the academy is not sufficient.

People v. Fullwiley:
Roadblock to check for driver’s license, insurance, and registration was unconstitutional because it did not protect a very compelling state interest, there were no official guidelines on how the officer should conduct the stops, and the roadblock was not publicized in advance.

People v. Massie:
State must provide proper foundation for admitting results of blood test performed in ordinary course of emergency room care in a license suspension hearing.

People v. Workman:
In a case involving a charge of driving under the combined influence of drugs and alcohol, reasonable doubt exists where there is no competent evidence regarding the nature and effect of the drug ingested and there is no admission by the defendant.

People v. Isaac:
Stop of vehicle traveling below posted speed limit held improper where there was no evidence that driver was impeding other traffic.

People v. Leyndecker:
Stop of defendant’s vehicle held improper where motorist went approximately one foot over fog line.

People v. Benutti:
Results of breath test suppressed because defendant, who was suffering from esphogeal reflux disease, regurgitated during twenty minute observation period.

People v. Canulli:
An evidentiary hearing must be held before before evidence of speeding using a Lidar laser radar unit can be admitted.

People v. Pomykala:
Presumption that a person has committed a reckless act by being under the influence in a reckless homicide case violates due process and is unconstitutional.

People v. Braman:
Evidence of prior convictions to enhance DUI to a felony need not be presented to a jury.

People v. Ray:
Drug interdiction checkpoint found unconstitutional. Stop of vehicle invalid.

People v. Brooks:
Evidence of refusal to take preliminary breath test (PBT), as well as tests accuracy or availability, is inadmissible at trial.

People v. Walter:
Court may dismiss DUI charge if first court date isn’t scheduled within 14 to 60 days of arrest.

People v. Owens:
Court erred when it did not admonish defendant of right to jury trial and failed to obtain valid jury waiver before proceeding to bench trial.

People v. Barnham:
Speed alone insufficient evidence to prove recklessness in reckless homicide case.

People v. Hood:
New trial required where State failed to disclose nature of expert witness testimony.

People v. Cosenza:
Hearing for rescission of statutory summary suspension must be conducted within 30 days of written request or the first court date. The term “conducted” means hearing must BEGIN AND CONCLUDE by the appropriate date.

Gumma v. White:
If breath test results are held inadmissible by a court of law in the criminal phase of a DUI case, those results are also inadmissible in a Statutory Summary Suspension hearing.

People v. Jones:
Section 11-501.2(c)(2) of the Illinois Vehicle Code prohibits nonconsensual chemical testing.

People v. Miller:
Once traffic stop is complete, officer should allow driver to continue on his way.

Defense Representation for: Chicago Illinois dui, Bridgeview Illinois dui, St. Charles Illinois dui, Oakbrook Illinois dui, Schaumburg Illinois dui, Joliet Il dui, Du Page County, Illinois dui, Will County Illinois dui