Traffic/DUI

Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of driving while license suspended. Statutory summary suspension was in effect, from a DUI arrest in another county, was in effect when Defendant was stopped. State was under no obligation to present evidence to prove that Defendant was not operating vehicle as allowed by monitoring device driving permit (MDDP). That a driver is eligible for MDPP does not necessarily mean that driver will comply with MDDP requirement. As there was insufficient evidence to raise a defense based on issuance of, and compliance with, a MDDP, State met its burden of proof by establishing that Defendant drop during SSS and was eligible for MDDP. (JORGENSEN and BURKE, concurring.)

Defendant, after being convicted of DUI and other traffic violations, was sentenced in absentia to jail and ordered to pay $172.60 for emergency response restitution. Scope of statute does not permit restitution merely for traffic stop enforcing the violation of Section 11-501 of Traffic Code. The costs of enforcing DUI violation are internalized through other imposed fines, fees, and costs from conviction. The external costs of emergency response, otherwise borne by the public, would not be internalized but for Section 501.01 of the Code. (TURNER and STEIGMANN, concurring.)

Defendant was arrested for DUI after stopping his car at roadside safety checkpoint. Investigatory stop did not occur, and Defendant did not contest his detention for DUI once officer approached him; thus, Defendant was not seized. Officer would have had ample basis for stopping and detaining Defendant, based on officer's observations that Defendant was driving too fast while approaching safety checkpoint, where multiple squad cars were parked. (CARTER, concurring; McDADE, dissenting.)

Court improperly granted DUI Defendant's petition to rescind statutory summary suspension (SSS) and motion to suppress evidence. Officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Defendant, after officer observed him cross over center line into oncoming lane of traffic, and do a "donut" in parking lot. (McDADE and O'BRIEN, concurring.)

Plaintiff filed FOIA complaint alleging that Secretary of State improperly denied his request for automated access to all DMV administrative decisions of license suspension or revocation within one year. Although request was invalid as to documents not yet created, it was valid as to existing documents. Secretary of State has burden to confer in attempt to reduce request to manageable proportions, before determining that request is unduly burdensome. (JORGENSEN and HUTCHINSON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of DUI after bench trial. Defendant introduced trial court's error into hearing, arguing that burden was shifted because Defendant had established that she was arrested without a warrant; and State did not acquiesce in error but deferred to trial court. Court properly refused to quash arrest and suppress evidence. (BURKE and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated DUI resulting in two deaths (man who was carrying his infant son along road after midnight, having run out of gas), and two counts of failure to report an accident involving two deaths, and sentenced to 10 years and 5 years, to run consecutively. State presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant's actions of driving truck and of driving under the influence caused deaths. Court's consideration of only two of the seven mitigating factors presented by Defendant was not abuse of discretion. That adult victim was intoxicated and had parked his car in road with no lights on are not extraordinary circumstances to warrant sentence of probation. GOLDENHERSH and WEXSTTEN, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of two counts of aggravated DUI, from incident resulting in death after her passenger was ejected from convertible. Despite its misstatements as to legal standard, court exercised discretion in reviewing evidence and pronouncing Defendant's sentence. Court explicitly addressed factors in mitigation and aggravation, and concluded that sentence of three years would have deterrent effect and minimize hardship to family, as Defendant's extended family can care for her three children during her incarceration, and her minor daughters will continue to receive financial support from social security payments from prior death of their father. (McDADE and WRIGHT, concurring.)