Articles Posted in DUI

[addthis tool="addthis_inline_share_toolbox_p165"]

In a recent Illinois appellate case, a mother challenged a conviction for child endangerment. The case arose when a Chicago cop was patrolling at 1:00 a.m. and was flagged down by someone reporting a child was left alone inside a car. There was a six-month-old baby in the baby seat in the back of the car, and he’d been crying. The rear window was open, and the car wasn’t running. The fire department was contacted, and the baby was removed from the car. The officer ran the plates and found the car was registered to the defendant, who lived about two blocks away. When the officer went to the address where the car was registered, he found the defendant sitting on the curb with a man. The cop smelled alcohol on the mom’s breath. He asked her if she knew where her child was, and the mom responded she’d gone to a party that night and drank alcohol, but she didn’t know why her car was parked on the other street. She’d forgotten her baby was inside. She was put in custody. At trial, th...

Posted in:

[addthis tool="addthis_inline_share_toolbox_p165"]

Last week the Illinois Court of Appeals held that in order to enter a residence without a warrant, the police need consent or demonstrate that an exception exists.  The case is People v. Swanson, 2016 IllApp (2d) 150340.  On the evening of January 7, 2015, Scott Swanson met a friend at a bar in Hinckley, Illinois. Swanson drank about 3 beers at the bar and left in his vehicle to go home.  It was icy outside with snow patches.  When he was roughly 2 miles from his home his car slid into a ditch, hit a stop sign, the airbags deployed and he cut his finger.  His vehicle could not start so he tried to call home but was unsuccessful.  It was below zero outside so he locked his vehicle and set out on foot to go home.  About a mile from the incident, he came upon the home of the Thompson family and knocked on the door.  The occupants answered the door but would not let him in. At some point a resident in the home pulled a gun and Swanson set out on foot to go home.  About a half a mile dow...

[addthis tool="addthis_inline_share_toolbox_p165"]

The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that the police can pull over a vehicle just for trying to avoid a police roadblock. Jacob Timmsen was driving down US Highway 31 when he saw bright orange warning signs that he was about to enter a police checkpoint. Timmsen activated his turn single and made a U-turn at a railroad crossing about 50 feet away from the roadblock. There was nothing improper about the maneuver. He properly used his turn signal and made an otherwise legal and proper driving maneuver. In spite of the fact that he was driving legally, a County Deputy working the police roadblock checkpoint pulled over Timmsen merely because he suspected that he was trying to avoid the police roadblock. After Timmsen was detained and interrogated by the deputy, it was determined that he was driving on a suspended license and placed under arrest. After he was arrested, the deputy searched Timmsen’s vehicle and found less than a gram of marijuana inside his vehicle. Timmsen was subsequen...

[addthis tool="addthis_inline_share_toolbox_p165"]

This week the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a Minnesota DUI case that will further help define the parameters of the 4th Amendment.  The case involves a statute in Minnesota which makes it a crime to refuse to take a breathalyzer test when requested by the police.  In 2012 police were called to a boat launch where a car was stuck while trying to to take a boat out of a lake. They confronted 3 men. all of which smelled of alcohol but all 3 denied being the driver.  One man was in his underwear and was holding the car keys.  The man was arrested and taken to the police station.  He was asked to take a breathalyzer test and refused.  He was charged with refusing to take a breathalyzer test based on a Minnesota statute which makes it a crime to refuse to take a breathalyzer test when requested to take one by a police officer.  12 other states have similar laws.  Illinois is not one of those states.  It’s not as if Illinois does not punish drivers who refuse to submit to a b...

[addthis tool="addthis_inline_share_toolbox_p165"]

Winning  a  Petition  to  Rescind  Statutory  Summary  Suspension  hearing pursuant  625  ILCS  5/11-501.1  means  the  world to  our clients. A win prevents our  client’s privileges from  being suspended so they can  drive while they are fighting their DUI and thereafter; whether the  DUI is  for  alcohol, cannabis or other drugs. My client was involved in a car accident when he side-swiped a limousine. When the police officer arrived at the scene of the accident, he apparently smelled the odor of burnt cannabis on my client and arrested him for DUI. However, there was no evidence that my client was under the influence of alcohol or any drug while he was driving. The police officer, although, did recover a  pipe from my client and cannabis from his car. Under 625 ILCS 5/11-501.1, the given officer is required to warn the motorist that his/her license will be suspended if he/she does not take the requested chemical tests. The police officer is required to sign and read to ...

Posted in:

[addthis tool="addthis_inline_share_toolbox_p165"]

The new year will bring some pretty significant changes to the Illinois DUI laws. The changes have the support of anti-DUI activists and criminal defense attorneys.  But to get everybody on board, the law contains things that make everyone happy.  First, let’s talk about the changes which will affect the fewest number of drivers.  Here’s the changes: – If you have been convicted of 2 or more DUI’s, you will be required to have a Restrictive Driving Permit for five years before you can have a full license reinstatement. – In order to have your license reinstated, you must have a Restrictive Driving Permit (RDP) and a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (BAID) for five continuous years. – If you have four or more DUI convictions you can apply for a RDP with the Illinois Secretary of State five years after your most recent revocation began or your most recent prison sentence ended (whichever is latest).  In order to get a Restrictive Driving Permit you must request a formal h...

Posted in:

[addthis tool="addthis_inline_share_toolbox_p165"]

The short answer to the question presented in the title to this post is no.  Let me explain. In my 23 years of practicing law, I have seen it all and have been asked every question that you could imagine.  One of the most common areas in which I get asked questions has to do with whether someone has to actually be driving their motor vehicle in order to be guilty of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). In Illinois, you are considered to be “driving” a vehicle, for purposes of a DUI, if you have actual physical control of a motor vehicle.  Whether you had actual physical control of a motor vehicle depends on the totality of the circumstances.  Some of the factors are where you were sitting in the vehicle, did you have the key to the vehicle, what were you doing inside the vehicle and did you have the ability to start the vehicle and move it? I’m writing this article because I just had a case in which my client had attended a party at a bar and had too much to ...

Posted in:

[addthis tool="addthis_inline_share_toolbox_p165"]

In an 8 to 1 ruling, the United States Supreme Court ruled that police should try to obtain a warrant from a Judge before forcing a citizen to submit to a blood test when it comes to a DUI.  This is a case that could have national implications that go beyond just DUI cases.  The case involved Tyler McNeeley, who was pulled over by a Missouri police officer who suspected that he had been operating his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.  McNeeley, who had two previous DUI cases, refused to submit to a breath test when the request was made by the arresting police officer.  The Missouri officer, who was a Missouri State Trooper, took McNeeley to a local hospital, instead of first obtaining a warrant from a judge, and had McNeeley’s blood drawn.  The blood draw indicated that McNeeley blood alcohol level was nearly twice the legal limit.  The Missouri Supreme Court had previously ruled that the blood draw violated the Missouri State Constitution.  On Wednesday, 8 Justices on t...

[addthis tool="addthis_inline_share_toolbox_p165"]

This week the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a Missouri DUI case which raises some interesting issues.  Two years ago, in the early morning hours, Tyler McNeely was pulled over by a Missouri State Trooper.  The Officer suspected that McNeely had been drinking so he performed the usual field sobriety tests and requested that McNeely take a blood alcohol test.  McNeely refused so the Officer placed handcuffs on McNeely, placed him in the back of his squad car, took him to a local hospital and had a nurse draw blood from McNeely while McNeely was restrained.  The blood draw revealed that McNeely’s blood alcohol level was nearly two times the legal limit and McNeely was charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI).  At trial McNeely challenged the blood draw on the basis that it violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  The trial court sided with McNeely and the state appealed to the Miss...

Posted in:

[addthis tool="addthis_inline_share_toolbox_p165"]

The Village of Schaumburg has announced that it has come up with a plan to equip all of their police squad cars and motorcycles with cameras. The cost will be $334,620. The funding source will be grants from various sources. There will be no additional cost to the Village. The Village has hired CVS Office Technologies to provide 40 in camera systems for the Department’s police cars and motorcycles. The cameras will be able to capture events that happen inside the vehicles and outside the vehicles. The videos can be used in court to prosecute cases or to defend police officers from claims of excessive force or improper behavior. According to the Schaumburg Police, even though the cameras can be used in prosecutions, they believe that the evidence captured by cameras benefits police officers 90% of the time. Most of the criminal cases that will involve video evidence will be DUI cases. It sounds like this will be a work-in-progress for the village. Police officers will have the abilit...

Posted in: