Per Se Conflicts of Interest Apply to DUI CasesBy Hon. Jeremy J. RicheyTraffic Laws and Courts, January 2022In People vs. Yost, the Illinois Supreme Court discussed the per se conflict of interest, which triggers an automatic reversal of conviction.
Plea of Guilty to Charge in One County Bars Prosecution of Similar Charge in Second CountyBy J. Brick Van Der SnickTraffic Laws and Courts, January 2022In People v. Hull, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss and bar La Salle County prosecution for aggravated fleeing and eluding as the defendant had already pleaded guilty to misdemeanor fleeing and eluding in Marshall County.
Breathalyzer Challenge Toppled by Lack of CredibilityBy Adam MillerTraffic Laws and Courts, May 2021In People v. Sokolowski, the court upheld the denial of a motion in limine asking to bar a preliminary breath test result and a guilty verdict following a stipulated bench trial.
Does State Commit a Discovery Violation When Evidence Does Not Exist?By Anisa Jordan & Victoria BuchholzTraffic Laws and Courts, May 2021People v. Althoff discusses whether a discovery violation occurs when the state fails to produce evidence requested by the defendant that normally would exist in the context of a DUI investigation but, for whatever reason, does not exist.
Summary of the License to Work ActBy Ted HarvatinTraffic Laws and Courts, February 2021On January 17, 2020, Governor Pritzker signed into the law the License to Work Act.
Big Changes in Discovery Procedure Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 415(c)By Sara M. VigTraffic Laws and Courts, November 2020A look at the revisions to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 415(c), which precluded a defense attorney from giving the attorney’s client a copy of his/her own discovery in felony case until October 23.
Mandatory 180 Jail Was Not Appropriate Because of Ambiguities in DUI LawBy Brick Van Der SnickTraffic Laws and Courts, November 2020In People v. Rowell, the appellate court vacated the defendant's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing on the grounds that 625 ILCS 5/11-501(c)(3) is ambiguous and vague.
Playing Videos During Jury DeliberationsBy Hon. Edward MaloneyTraffic Laws and Courts, November 2020In People v. Hollahan, the Illinois Supreme Court reviewed whether reversible error was committed when, after the jury had retired to deliberate, the court granted the jury’s request to review a video but played it in the courtroom with the judge, parties and alternate jurors present.
Recent Cases and Cases of InterestBy Thomas M. MoranTraffic Laws and Courts, November 2020Summaries of recent cases of interest to traffic law practitioners.
Detective Sworn Report Not Fatal: People v. Raupp, 2020 IL App (2d) 190309By Adam M. MillerTraffic Laws and Courts, October 2020On February 20, 2020 the second district appellate court reversed a trial court’s decision to rescind a statutory summary suspension based on a defective sworn report and the resulting statutorily deficient notice.
Is Odor of Cannabis Enough?By Sarah VigTraffic Laws and Courts, October 2020On March 19, 2020 in People v. Hill, the Illinois Supreme Court weighed in on the issue of whether the odor of cannabis can be used as probable cause to search a vehicle.
No Video, No Discovery ViolationBy David FranksTraffic Laws and Courts, October 2020Absent evidence indicating that the state could have at one time produced an in-squad video and entire booking room video, and where the evidence did not prove that the recordings ever existed, the state did not commit a discovery violation.
Compelled Chemical Testing After Accident May Be UnconstitutionalBy James SternTraffic Laws and Courts, April 2020A summary of People v. Eubanks, in which the defendant appealed a conviction of first-degree murder, failure to report an accident involving death or injury, and aggravated driving under the influence.
The Factual Basis: Keep It SimpleBy Hon. Jeremy RicheyTraffic Laws and Courts, April 2020Unless the judge you are appearing in front of requires a detailed factual basis for a defendant's guilty plea, you should keep the factual basis short and focused.
Sufficient Information Was Conveyed During 911 Call to Properly Stop DefendantBy J. Brick Van Der SnickTraffic Laws and Courts, April 2020In People v. Shelton, the defendant appealed the trial court's ruling that he did not have ineffective trial counsel based on the fact that his trial counsel did not file a motion to suppress evidence based on a 911 call containing insufficient information for the arresting officer to develop reasonable suspicion.
Appellate Court Vacates Orders, Remands for New Revocation HearingBy J. Brick Van Der Snick & Andrew MorrisTraffic Laws and Courts, February 2020In People v. Nemec, the defendant appealed an order revoking his court supervision, an entry of a conviction, and an order to pay fines and costs, arguing he was deprived of his right to be properly admonished of his rights to be represented by counsel at his revocation hearing.
Case NotesBy Juliet BoydTraffic Laws and Courts, February 2020Summaries of two recent appellate cases of interest.
Language May Be a Barrier, Except for Warning to MotoristBy Ted HammelTraffic Laws and Courts, February 2020Last May, the third district appellate court reversed a trial court’s decision rescinding the statutory summary suspension on the grounds of inadequate warnings.
MDDP IssuesBy Ted HarvatinTraffic Laws and Courts, December 2019An overview of the Monitoring Device Driving Permit Program.
The Corpus Delicti RuleBy J. Brick Van Der Snick & Andrew L. MorrisTraffic Laws and Courts, August 2019A summary of People v. Sanchez, in which the defendant appealed his conviction for one count of driving under the influence of alcohol.
Has Missouri v. McNeely Been Overruled by Mitchell v. Wisconsin?By Larry A. DavisTraffic Laws and Courts, August 2019In Mitchell v. Wisconsin, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Wisconsin statute providing for a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious DUI suspect is always constitutional, except in the rarest of circumstances, pursuant to the “exigent circumstances” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
