Strobel: When there’s no audio on the video
By David B. Franks
Traffic Laws and Courts,
February 2015
Trial Court abused its discretion in barring testimony regarding field sobriety tests and barring the introduction of the video depicting defendant's performance on the field sobriety tests since no audio recording of the Police encounter with Defendant ever existed.
People v. Smulik
By David B. Franks
Traffic Laws and Courts,
May 2012
The Appellate Court concluded that the anonymous tip in the matter at bar lacked predictive value. The Appellate Court concluded that the informant did not predict anything; the informant merely reported contemporaneous observations as to the description and location of a vehicle she was following.
Case notes
By Andrea Mesko, Mark Kevin Wykoff, Sr., Jesus Ricardo Rivera, David B. Franks, & James Stern
Criminal Justice,
March 2012
Recent cases of interest to criminal law practitioners.
People v. Barwan, et al
By David B. Franks
Traffic Laws and Courts,
March 2012
Three unrelated cases, involving the same issue, were consolidated for decision. Each of three defendants were charged by indictment with driving under the influence of alcohol.
People v. Price
By David B. Franks
Traffic Laws and Courts,
March 2012
The arresting officer’s testimony regarding the size of the air freshener, how it swayed back and forth, and that it would have obstructed defendant’s view based on defendant’s sitting position, provided the arresting officer reasonable suspicion, based on a material obstruction, to justify the arresting officer stopping defendant’s vehicle.
People v. Geier
By David B. Franks
Traffic Laws and Courts,
August 2011
Initial probable cause did not dissipate merely because Arresting Officer continued to follow motorist for two to four miles, after observing traffic violation, before stopping motorist.
People v. Maldonado
By David B. Franks
Traffic Laws and Courts,
November 2010
The appellate court concluded that the DUI statute was ambiguous because it prescribed mutually exclusive sentencing schemes for a defendant who has been convicted of committing a sixth or subsequent DUI.
Case note
By David B. Franks
Criminal Justice,
August 2010
A look at the case of People v. Bridgewater, 235 Ill.2d 85 (2009).
People v. McDonough, 395 Ill.App.3d 194, 334 Ill.Dec.764 (4th Dist. 2009)
By David B. Franks
Traffic Laws and Courts,
March 2010
In this DUI case, the trial court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence on the ground that the State Trooper had improperly seized Defendant. Because the State Trooper did not engage in any police misconduct, the 4th District Appellate Court reversed the trial court, ruling that the exclusionary rule did not apply to this case.
Case summaries
By Lori G. Levin, Steve Baker, David B. Franks, Hon. Michael P. McCuskey, Sandra Blake, George G. Leynaud, & Judith Lozier
Criminal Justice,
May 2009
Recent cases of interest to criminal law attorneys.
Case summaries
By David B. Franks & Hon. John A. Wasilewski
Criminal Justice,
May 2008
In 2000 the victim hired defendant and another individual to perform electrical work in her apartment. The project lasted several months.
Case summary
By David B. Franks
Traffic Laws and Courts,
March 2007
On August 18, 2002 the Defendant, Catherine Sturgess, was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident.
Spot an error in your article? Contact Sara Anderson at sanderson@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article,visit the ISBA Newsletters page.
Select a Different Author