Are blood draws under Illinois Implied Injury Consent Injury statutes unconstitutional?By Donald J. RamsellTraffic Laws and Courts, May 2015In a recent decision in Illinois, an appellate court was asked to decide whether 11-501.6, the personal injury testing statute, was facially unconstitutional under the 4th amendment in light of Missouri v. McNeely.
Cook County judge finds law precluding court supervision for “excessive speeding” unconstitutionalBy Tom SpeedieTraffic Laws and Courts, May 2015In his motion, the judge argued that the aggravated speeding statute is unconstitutional as violating Due Process and Equal Protection, and that preclusion of court supervision on the charge pursuant to 730 ILCS 5/5-6-1(p) violates the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution.
Ex parte judgments in petty traffic casesBy Jeremy RicheyTraffic Laws and Courts, March 2015A discussion of what these judgments are and how the practitioner may set them aside.
Strobel: When there’s no audio on the videoBy David B. FranksTraffic Laws and Courts, February 2015Trial 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.
Constitutionality of Secretary of State BAIID violation hearingsBy Larry A. DavisTraffic Laws and Courts, May 2014Since the burden of proof is on the driver to establish that no violation occurred, the Secretary of State will typically uphold the suspension based solely on the evidence provided by the printout.
Is the Illinois summary revocation law enforceable?By Larry A. DavisTraffic Laws and Courts, January 2014As things currently stand, law enforcement officers should be properly trained that where probable cause to arrest for DUI exists prior to requesting testing, warnings must be given pursuant to Section 11-501.1 and where such reasonable grounds do not exist, warnings must provided under Section 11-501.6.
Warrantless blood draws discussed by U.S. Supreme CourtBy Ava George StewartTraffic Laws and Courts, June 2013The case of Missouri v. McNeeley now puts the government on notice that where there is a blood draw, without a warrant, the government should be prepared to lay out the reasoning to support the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment.
Objects under the rearview mirror may be more of a material obstruction than they appearBy Rob ShumakerTraffic Laws and Courts, March 2013Objects dangling from the rearview mirror may justify a traffic stop but only if they constitute a material obstruction. The author addresses the case law on this issue and offers practice tips to determine whether an object materially obstructs a driver’s view of the road.
A primer on motions to vacate in traffic casesBy Lisa L. DunnTraffic Laws and Courts, September 2012A properly pled §5/2-1401 petition to vacate can be a highly effective and expeditious means to “correct” your client’s actions from failing to appear in court and the resulting suspension of his driver’s license.
Relief from a mandatory revocation for causing death by violation of the vehicle codeBy J. Randall CoxTraffic Laws and Courts, September 2012A relatively new section of the Vehicle Code provides for the mandatory revocation of driving privileges if someone violates a provision of the Vehicle Code, and that violation proximately causes the death of another.
Uncounseled misdemeanor convictions may lead to felonies charges under People ex rel. Glasgow v. KinneyBy Ted P. Hammel & Sarah M. VaheyTraffic Laws and Courts, September 2012In the recent Illinois Supreme Court case of People ex rel. Glasgow v. Kinney, the Court held that prior uncounseled misdemeanor DUI convictions may be considered in determining whether a latter offense will be elevated to a nonprobationable Class 2 felony.
People v. SmulikBy David B. FranksTraffic Laws and Courts, May 2012The 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.
People v. Barwan, et alBy David B. FranksTraffic Laws and Courts, March 2012Three 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. PriceBy David B. FranksTraffic Laws and Courts, March 2012The 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.
Review of People v. HallBy Donald J. RamsellTraffic Laws and Courts, March 2012In this case, because the defendant was a judge, the Illinois Attorney Generals’ office was brought in to handle the matter. Two weeks later, after the assistant attorney general learned that the blood samples were still at the hospital, they were ordered to be released to authorities for testing at the Illinois State Police laboratory. The samples did not contain a preservative.
Sixty-two days means exactly that!By J. Brick Van Der SnickTraffic Laws and Courts, March 2012A discussion of the ramifications of the People v. Clairmont & Fernandez decision.
Summary suspension notice through the mailBy Edward M. MaloneyTraffic Laws and Courts, March 2012Counsel should advise clients that if they receive a postcard indicating that they have a letter for certified mail, they should contact their attorney first before accepting and signing for the letter.
You think your client is going to lie on the stand—The classic dilemma of a criminal defense lawyerBy Juliet BoydTraffic Laws and Courts, March 2012If faced by this dilemma, a lawyer should review the cases, the approaches and the rules of professional conduct. The lawyer must carefully analyze the facts of their situation. It may also be helpful to call the confidential hot line at the ARDC for advice or to pose a hypothetical to an experienced colleague. Unfortunately there is no simple resolution to this question.