Quick takes from today's Illinois Supreme Court opinions

CRIMINAL

People v. Boeckmann

By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender These consolidated cases involved a constitutional challenge to Section 6-206(a)(43) of the Illinois Vehicle Code, the statutory provision which requires suspension of driving privileges for 90 days for any person receiving court supervision for unlawful consumption of alcohol under 21 years of age. The circuit court held that the statute, as applied, violated due process because a vehicle was not involved in the commission of the offense. The Supreme Court disagreed. The purpose of 6-206(a)(43) is to "promote the safe and legal operation and ownership of motor vehicles." Suspension of driving privileges bears a rational relationship to that purpose because "young people who have a driver's license and consume alcohol illegally may also drive after consuming alcohol regardless of whether a motor vehicle is involved." And, the suspension of driving privileges is a reasonable method of furthering the public interest in safe and legal operation of motor vehicles, despite the absence of a vehicle or any plan to drive. So, for persons under 21, it doesn't matter if a vehicle is involved in the commission of the offense of unlawful consumption of alcohol. It doesn't even matter if a person under 21 who commits the offense of unlawful consumption of alcohol contemplates driving or not. Suspension of driving privileges for anyone receiving supervision for that offense is proper. Case Summary Opinion 108289

In re The Detention of Hardin

By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender Here, the Court was forced to "fill in the blanks" in two areas where the Sexually Violent Persons Act is silent. First, the Court considered the Act's failure to specifically provide for appeals from findings of no probable cause, and held that the Act's silence does not mean that there is no right of appeal. SVP proceedings are civil in nature and thus are governed by civil procedure rules. In SVP proceedings, a finding of no probable cause results in a dismissal of the State's petition -- a final judgment from which the State may appeal. The Court went on to consider the lack of a specific statutory provision detailing the quantum of evidence necessary to establish probable cause in SVP proceedings. On this issue, the Court looked to the approach taken in criminal cases. The Court also, as it has in prior SVP cases, looked to Wisconsin case law interpreting an SVP statute very similar Illinois's SVP Act. Relying on these two sources, the Court concluded that the State must produce "plausible" evidence on each statutory probable cause element to meet its burden in SVP proceedings. Case summary Opinion 108615