Section Newsletters

Articles From J. Brick Van Der Snick

Defendant’s failure to appear in court during a speedy trial demand causes waiver of demand By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, June 2010 The First District Appellate Court reversed the trial court's finding that Defendant’s failure to appear in court temporarily suspended but did not waive the 160-day speedy trial period.
Sufficiency of proof for a conviction of DUI and reliability of Field-Sobriety Tests in proving intoxication By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, March 2010 In an opinion authored by Justice Steigmann, the court reviewed the evidence introduced at trial to determine whether it proved Defendant guilty of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt and also analyzed the Defendant’s claim that the field-sobriety tests were unreliable.
1 comment (Most recent February 24, 2010)
Motorist failed to present credible evidence of drug-interdiction checkpoint in statutory summary suspension hearing By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, June 2009 A summary of the case of People v. Scott W. Hacker.
Physical actions control verbal responses in determining a refusal in statutory summary suspension hearings By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, September 2008 People v. Severson, 379 Ill. App. 3d 699 (2nd Dist 2008). On March 7, 2008 the Illinois Appellate Court Second District, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Illinois granting defendant’s petition to rescind statutory summary suspension.
Supreme Court Rule 137 sanctions—Affirmed (DUI case) By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, February 2008 On November 26, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of McHenry County in an award of sanctions against the State (McHenry County) after the State filed two (2) notices of motion that violated local court rules and one (1) that was not properly placed on the court call. People v. Stefanski, ___ N.E.2d ___, 2007 WL 4181577, Ill.App.2 Dist., November 26, 2007 (No. 2-06-1176).
Can a single strand of beads hanging from the rearview mirror form the basis for a legitimate traffic stop? By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, March 2007 In People v. Ronald Cole, the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District held that a single strand of beads hanging from a defendant’s rearview mirror, without materially obstructing the defendant’s view, could not form a legitimate basis for a traffic stop of the defendant.
Is a treating physician required to be disclosed as an expert testimony in DUI prosecution? By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, January 2007 In the People v. Paul Cortez, the Illinois Appellate District held the testimony of the emergency room treating physician was not required to be disclosed as an expert testimony in the prosecution for DUI pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 412.
People v. Stipp: Blood serum alcohol concentration test results are admissible in DUI prosecutions under 625 ILCS 5/11-501.4 By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, January 2005 In People of the State of Illinois v. Stipp, 349 Ill.App.3d 955 (3rd Dist June 23, 2004), the Illinois Appellate Court held that the word "blood"as used in Section 11-501.4 of the Illinois Vehicle Code should be interpreted to include not only whole blood alcohol concentration test results, but whole blood alcohol concentrations converted from blood serum test results.
Second District holds that preliminary breath tests (PBTs) can be used as evidence in statutory summary suspension hearings By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, June 2004 In People of the State of Illinois v. Rozela, 345 Ill.App.3d 217, (2nd Dist. 2003), the Illinois Appellate Court held that Section 11-501.5 of the Vehicle Code permitted the State to introduce the result of a Preliminary Breath Test (PBT) to support the officer's conclusion that he had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DUI in a statutory summary suspension hearing.
Driving below the posted speed limit as the basis for stopping a vehicle By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, May 2003 In an interesting decision (and not uncommon situation confronted by defense counsel) the Second Appellate District has issued a decision in a case where the officer stopped the vehicle for traveling below the posted speed limit. People v. Karen Isaac, 2-01-0660, (filed December 4, 2002).
People v. Lindsey: No Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in probation revocation hearings By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, December 2002 Defense attorneys are often confronted with the situation of a client on supervision, conditional discharge or probation for a traffic-related offense who faces a petition for violation of sentencing conditions.
Discovery in DUI, misdemeanor and traffic cases By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, February 2002 A problem facing prosecutors and defense attorney's practicing in the field of DUI, which includes statutory summary suspensions, misdemeanor, and traffic cases, is to what extent discovery is allowed under the Illinois statutes and case law.
Judicial estoppel to bar use of breath or blood test results? By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, July 2000 In People v. Wisbrock, 223 Ill.App.3d 173 (3rd Dist. 1991), the appellate court ruled that the State was precluded from utilizing a breath result in a DUI trial, where the defendant's conduct at the time of testing had been construed as a test refusal at the summary suspension hearing.
Discovery in DUI, misdemeanor and traffic cases By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, March 2000 One of the most difficult and confusing parts of a driving while under the influence (DUI) prosecution by a State's Attorney or village prosecutor is the anomaly under the law of the right to discovery by the Defendant.
Use of Requests to Admit in summary suspension hearings By J. Brick Van Der Snick Traffic Laws and Courts, June 1999 This article will outline the impact and benefits of using the Request to Admit Facts in a summary suspension proceeding and will highlight the case law on this point.

Spot an error in your article? Contact Celeste Niemann at cniemann@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article, visit the ISBA Newsletters page.

Select a Different Author