Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White announced this month that the 2008 Illinois DUI Fact Book is now available. The book is frequently used as a resource for media and the general public, and contains statistics, changes in the law and other information. The book describes the penalties for a DUI conviction in Illinois, the average cost of a DUI and new laws, including a discussion of the Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (BAIID) law which will take effect on January 1, 2009, and which was a previous topic of my blog. To view the book in its entirety, visit www.cyberdriveillinois.com
Cost of a DUI Conviction
According to the fact book, convicted DUI offenders in the State of Illinois face tough penalties and licensing sanctions, with an average cost of a DUI offense a staggering $15,000. This figure reflects the cost of court and legal fees, potential income loss, costs associated with having a driver’s license reinstated, and the added cost of having to maintain high-risk auto insurance.
Here’s a breakdown of the average cost of a DUI conviction in the State of Illinois:
Insurance (3 years of required high-risk insurance at a cost of $1500 per year)=$4500
Legal Fees (uncontested plea and hardship driving permit)=$2000
Court Costs =$500
Fine (average fine)=$2500
Towing and Storage Fees=$250
Trauma Center Fund=$100
Loss of Income (Loss of four weeks income due to court appearances, jail time, community service, evaluations or remedial education classes, based on a $40,000/year salary)=$4,000
Rehabilitation (remedial substance abuse class and counseling)=$250
Driver’s License Reinstatement=$560
Total Cost=$14,660
The cost noted above does not take into consideration any potential damages to persons or property if a collision was involved. The above cost also does not factor in loss of potential future income depending on your occupation or profession. For example, if you are a professional driver such as a bus driver or truck driver, or if you are an airline pilot, a DUI conviction will impact your ability to earn a living.
What Should You Do If You Are Arrested for a DUI?
If you are arrested for violating Illinois’ DUI laws, contact an experienced DUI attorney immediately. In order to preserve your rights, you should seek legal counsel without delay. In Chicago, videotapes and audiotapes of arrests are only maintained for 30 days, after which valuable evidence documenting your arrest may be lost. In addition, if you fail to file required documentation within 46 days of your arrest, your license will automatically be suspended.
A lawyer experienced in defending people accused of DUI can challenge the prosecutor’s evidence and could have the charges reduced or dropped without having to accept a conviction. If you have been arrested for DUI, call Chicago DUI defense attorney Ava George Stewart at (312) 944-3973 to schedule a free consultation. Thanks for reading.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
“Use It & Lose It” Zero Tolerance Law for Drivers Under 21
Statistics show that underage drinking is on the rise nationally. In 2006, 2,663 Illinois drivers under the age of 21 had their license suspended for having alcohol in their system or for refusing to submit to chemical testing. Additionally, some 4,796 underage drivers in Illinois were arrested for DUI and received suspensions.
Illinois’ “Use It & Lose It” law is targeted at drivers under the age of 21 who have any trace of alcohol in their system, or who refuse to submit to chemical testing. Under the “Use It & Lose It” law, on a first offense, driving privileges will be suspended for 3 months for a Blood Alcohol Level (BAC) of more than .00, or driving privileges will be suspended for 6 months for failure to submit to or complete chemical testing. If the driver holds a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), their CDL privileges will be suspended for one year.
On a second offense under “Use It & Lose It” law, driving privileges for a BAC of over .00 will be suspended for one year, and refusal to submit to or complete chemical testing will result in a suspension of driving privileges for 2 years. A second offense for a driver holding a CDL will result in a lifetime disqualification on CDL privileges.
What Happens if You are Under 21 and Convicted of DUI?
If you are under the age of 21 and are convicted of first-time DUI offense, your driving privileges will be revoked for a minimum of 2 years. You will not be eligible for a Restricted Driving Permit until the second year of your license revocation. Additionally, if you are under the age of 18, remedial education and/or retesting may be required before your driving privileges will be reinstated.
If you are under age 21, the judge may require you to attend a Youthful Intoxicated Driver’s Visitation Program as a condition of your probation or discharge. You will be required to attend a comprehensive counseling session to determine whether or not this program is appropriate for you. This program may send you on a supervised visit to a location where the impact of a DUI crash or alcoholism may be studied or observed.
Accidents Causing Injury or Death
If you are under the age of 18 and are charged with an offense as a result of an accident in which a passenger was seriously injured or killed, you may be denied a driver’s license or driver’s license renewal by the Illinois Secretary of State’s office.
Parental Responsibility
Parents face fines and possible imprisonment for allowing persons under the age of 21 to consume alcohol. It is important to note that the parents face repercussions for failing to supervise minors or knowingly allowing minors to consume alcohol; parents do not have to supply the alcohol. A parent or legal guardian who knowingly allows persons under the age of 21 to consume alcoholic beverages at a private residence is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, and faces possible imprisonment of 12 months and a $500-2,500 fine.
If a parent or legal guardian knowingly allows persons under 21 to consume alcohol by failing to control access to a private residence or access to alcoholic beverages in the residence, and bodily harm results to someone as a result of this access, the parent/guardian is guilty of a Class 4 felony. If great bodily harm or death results, the parent/guardian faces possible imprisonment of 1-3 years and possible fines of up to $25,000.
Thanks for reading my blog-I hope you have found this information to be interesting and informative. If you have a question or comment, feel free to post it here, but keep in mind your response will not be confidential. If you are under 21 and have been accused of a DUI offense in the State of Illinois, contact me for immediate assistance.
Illinois’ “Use It & Lose It” law is targeted at drivers under the age of 21 who have any trace of alcohol in their system, or who refuse to submit to chemical testing. Under the “Use It & Lose It” law, on a first offense, driving privileges will be suspended for 3 months for a Blood Alcohol Level (BAC) of more than .00, or driving privileges will be suspended for 6 months for failure to submit to or complete chemical testing. If the driver holds a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), their CDL privileges will be suspended for one year.
On a second offense under “Use It & Lose It” law, driving privileges for a BAC of over .00 will be suspended for one year, and refusal to submit to or complete chemical testing will result in a suspension of driving privileges for 2 years. A second offense for a driver holding a CDL will result in a lifetime disqualification on CDL privileges.
What Happens if You are Under 21 and Convicted of DUI?
If you are under the age of 21 and are convicted of first-time DUI offense, your driving privileges will be revoked for a minimum of 2 years. You will not be eligible for a Restricted Driving Permit until the second year of your license revocation. Additionally, if you are under the age of 18, remedial education and/or retesting may be required before your driving privileges will be reinstated.
If you are under age 21, the judge may require you to attend a Youthful Intoxicated Driver’s Visitation Program as a condition of your probation or discharge. You will be required to attend a comprehensive counseling session to determine whether or not this program is appropriate for you. This program may send you on a supervised visit to a location where the impact of a DUI crash or alcoholism may be studied or observed.
Accidents Causing Injury or Death
If you are under the age of 18 and are charged with an offense as a result of an accident in which a passenger was seriously injured or killed, you may be denied a driver’s license or driver’s license renewal by the Illinois Secretary of State’s office.
Parental Responsibility
Parents face fines and possible imprisonment for allowing persons under the age of 21 to consume alcohol. It is important to note that the parents face repercussions for failing to supervise minors or knowingly allowing minors to consume alcohol; parents do not have to supply the alcohol. A parent or legal guardian who knowingly allows persons under the age of 21 to consume alcoholic beverages at a private residence is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, and faces possible imprisonment of 12 months and a $500-2,500 fine.
If a parent or legal guardian knowingly allows persons under 21 to consume alcohol by failing to control access to a private residence or access to alcoholic beverages in the residence, and bodily harm results to someone as a result of this access, the parent/guardian is guilty of a Class 4 felony. If great bodily harm or death results, the parent/guardian faces possible imprisonment of 1-3 years and possible fines of up to $25,000.
Thanks for reading my blog-I hope you have found this information to be interesting and informative. If you have a question or comment, feel free to post it here, but keep in mind your response will not be confidential. If you are under 21 and have been accused of a DUI offense in the State of Illinois, contact me for immediate assistance.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Social Host Liability in the State of Illinois
The Drug or Alcohol Impaired Minor Responsibility Act (“the Act”) became law in the State of Illinois in 2004. The purpose of the law was to discourage social hosts from serving alcohol to minors by imposing legal liability on the host for death or injuries caused by the consumption of alcohol or illegal drugs. The Act is similar to a dram shop liability law that imposes liability on bars or other businesses that serve alcohol for death or injuries to third parties, if the person who was intoxicated was served at the establishment and was visibly intoxicated or a minor. Illinois dram shop laws will hold a business establishment responsible if the following conditions are met:
- Alcohol was sold to the patron;
- Proximate cause exists between the sale of alcohol and intoxication;
- Injuries were sustained; and
- Intoxication was at least one cause of the injuries.
The Act differs from dram shop laws in that it allows a cause of action for minors under the age of 18 who are injured by an impairment that was caused by the consumption of alcoholic beverages or illegal drugs. According to statistics released by the Illinois’ Department of Human Services’ Division of Community Health and Prevention, underage drinking is on the rise in Illinois.
Lawsuit Against Social Hosts
Just one month after the Act went into effect, an accident involving social host liability led to a lawsuit. Four girls were leaving a Halloween party where they had consumed beer from kegs. All four girls were minors. The driver of the vehicle made an illegal turn in front of a semi-tractor trailer, and one of her passengers was seriously injured. The driver submitted to a Breathalyzer test, and her blood alcohol level registered .08. The injured girl’s family filed a lawsuit against the hosts of the party under the Drug or Alcohol Impaired Minor Responsibility Act, alleging negligence on the part of the hosts. Specifically, the family alleged the host was negligent in failing to check IDs or failing to hire someone to check IDs of partygoers. The lawsuit was settled for $1,625,000.
How to Avoid Liability as a Social Host
If you are hosting a party or event, you should be aware of your responsibilities under the Drug or Alcohol Impaired Minor Responsibility Act. The Illinois Department of Transportation offers the following tips for social hosts to ensure the safety of their guests:
- Appoint a reliable bartender to monitor guests’ drinking. Don’t let your guests mix their own drinks.
- Do not serve alcohol to anyone under the age of 21. If you aren’t sure if a guest is over the age of 21, request ID.
- Set up an “alcohol free” bar with juices, flavored waters and punch or “mocktails” as an alternative to alcoholic beverages.
- Serve plenty of food to keep guests from drinking on an empty stomach
- Stop serving alcohol 90 minutes before the party ends.
- Insist that impaired guests stay over or find them a ride home. Keep the numbers of local cab companies handy.
I hope you found this blog posting to be interesting and informative. If you have any comments or questions, please feel free to respond to this posting. If you have been accused of a violation of Illinois’ driving under the influence or traffic laws, contact me for immediate, confidential assistance. Thanks for reading.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Holiday Drivers Warned of Possible Seizure and Forfeiture of Vehicle
This past July 4th holiday weekend, authorities warned of an increased police presence and additional roadside checks over the weekend. Illinois State Police Commander Jeffrey Hedrich is quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times before the weekend as saying some 200 police agencies in the state will be conducting over 100 roadside checks over the weekend.
DuPage County authorities have announced that they will be seizing vehicles from drivers; so far this year, they have seized 417 vehicles, mostly as a result of alcohol-related stops. State Attorney Joseph Birkett reminded the public in a news conference that pursuant to Illinois state law, local law enforcement agencies are authorized to seize and sell vehicles from drivers who are under the influence.
State Attorney Birkett is referring to the seizure of vehicles under 720 ILCS 5/36-1 and the corresponding forfeiture proceedings pursuant to 720 ILCS 5/36-2.1. If you are driving on a suspended license (such as a statutory summary suspension) or a revoked license (based on a previous DUI conviction) and are arrested on suspicion of felony DUI charges, your car is subject to possible seizure and forfeiture.
When a person is arrested, the vehicle is seized by the arresting police department and must be delivered “forthwith” to the sheriff of the county where the seizure occurred. Upon delivery of the vehicle, within 15 days the sheriff must notify everyone listed on the title to the vehicle by certified mail to the address on file with the Secretary of State, and must also notify the State’s Attorney in the county where the seizure occurred. The statute provides that the spouse of the owner of the seized vehicle can file a hardship provision transferring title to the vehicle to the spouse if the vehicle is the family’s sole form of transportation and the hardship to the family outweighs the state’s interest in the vehicle. Hardship relief is only available once per family. If someone in the family subsequently has the same or another vehicle seized, hardship relief will not be available.
Unless there are other mitigating factors warranting remission of the forfeiture, the State Attorney must file a complaint for forfeiture in the circuit court and serve notice on the appropriate parties, who must file a verified answer to the complaint within 20 days from the date the complaint was mailed. If the vehicle is subject to a lien, the lienholder will typically file an answer asserting their interest in the vehicle and stating they had no knowledge the vehicle would be used in the commission of an offense. The lienholder will also file a petition seeking the return of the vehicle under their security interest.
If the vehicle is not released on a hardship provision or on a lienholder’s petition, a hearing is held on the forfeiture. The state must only show by a preponderance of the evidence that the vehicle was used in the commission of a crime. The vehicle owner does not have to be convicted of the underlying offense to uphold a forfeiture proceeding.
If you have been accused of a violation of Illinois’ DUI laws, or if your vehicle has been seized, contact me for immediate assistance. Thanks for reading, and have a safe 4th of July holiday weekend.
DuPage County authorities have announced that they will be seizing vehicles from drivers; so far this year, they have seized 417 vehicles, mostly as a result of alcohol-related stops. State Attorney Joseph Birkett reminded the public in a news conference that pursuant to Illinois state law, local law enforcement agencies are authorized to seize and sell vehicles from drivers who are under the influence.
State Attorney Birkett is referring to the seizure of vehicles under 720 ILCS 5/36-1 and the corresponding forfeiture proceedings pursuant to 720 ILCS 5/36-2.1. If you are driving on a suspended license (such as a statutory summary suspension) or a revoked license (based on a previous DUI conviction) and are arrested on suspicion of felony DUI charges, your car is subject to possible seizure and forfeiture.
When a person is arrested, the vehicle is seized by the arresting police department and must be delivered “forthwith” to the sheriff of the county where the seizure occurred. Upon delivery of the vehicle, within 15 days the sheriff must notify everyone listed on the title to the vehicle by certified mail to the address on file with the Secretary of State, and must also notify the State’s Attorney in the county where the seizure occurred. The statute provides that the spouse of the owner of the seized vehicle can file a hardship provision transferring title to the vehicle to the spouse if the vehicle is the family’s sole form of transportation and the hardship to the family outweighs the state’s interest in the vehicle. Hardship relief is only available once per family. If someone in the family subsequently has the same or another vehicle seized, hardship relief will not be available.
Unless there are other mitigating factors warranting remission of the forfeiture, the State Attorney must file a complaint for forfeiture in the circuit court and serve notice on the appropriate parties, who must file a verified answer to the complaint within 20 days from the date the complaint was mailed. If the vehicle is subject to a lien, the lienholder will typically file an answer asserting their interest in the vehicle and stating they had no knowledge the vehicle would be used in the commission of an offense. The lienholder will also file a petition seeking the return of the vehicle under their security interest.
If the vehicle is not released on a hardship provision or on a lienholder’s petition, a hearing is held on the forfeiture. The state must only show by a preponderance of the evidence that the vehicle was used in the commission of a crime. The vehicle owner does not have to be convicted of the underlying offense to uphold a forfeiture proceeding.
If you have been accused of a violation of Illinois’ DUI laws, or if your vehicle has been seized, contact me for immediate assistance. Thanks for reading, and have a safe 4th of July holiday weekend.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Illinois Supreme Court Questions Reliability of a Field Sobriety Test
The Illinois Supreme Court issued a ruling in September in the case of Illinois v. McKown that questioned the use of a key field sobriety test known as the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN). The court ruled that the results of a horizontal gaze nystagmus test should be subject to challenge at trial. A prior Court of Appeal ruling had determined that the reliability of the test could not be questioned at trial. In overruling the Court of Appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court noted that there is a difference in opinion in courts across the country as to whether the HGN is reliable. The court previously noted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the test is incorrect 22 percent of the time.
The HGN is one out of a battery of three tests developed by the NHTSA to assist a police officer in obtaining validated indicators of impairment and establish probable cause for an arrest. These three tests are referred to as the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST), and consist of the HGN, the walk and turn, and the one-leg stand.
The HGN test measures the extent that your eyes flicker back and forth while following a moving object such as a pen, a finger, or a small flashlight. The theory behind this test is that someone under the influence of alcohol will have difficulty following the object and that the eye flicker will occur early, while a person who is not under the influence will be able to track the object further. However, HGN test may indicate other substances besides alcohol such as seizure medications, phencyclidine, a variety of inhalants, barbiturates, and other depressants.
In the McKown case, Joanne McKown was involved in an accident involving her vehicle and three motorcycles. Ms. McKown admitted to having two beers before leaving her home and a third while driving. Ms. McKown was transported a hospital for treatment for a broken toe. While in a hospital bed, an officer administered the HGN test, which he determined Ms. McKown failed. No other field sobriety test was administered, since Ms. McKown had a broken toe and could not walk properly. The officer admitted that he knew McKown had been administered medication while in the hospital, drugs that could have affected the HGN results.
Ms. McKown was charged with multiple counts of DUI and reckless driving. She refused to submit to chemical testing until a search warrant was issued several hours later. Blood samples taken from McKown did not detect the presence of any alcohol, and the only evidence of her impairment was the failed HGN test.
The Illinois Supreme Court did not find McKown to be innocent of the charges; rather, it determined that an evidentiary hearing must be conducted to establish the reliability of the HGN test. The case was therefore remanded back to the trial court.
If you are arrested for a DUI in Illinois, you must contact an attorney immediately.
A lawyer experienced in defending people accused of DUI can challenge the prosecutor’s evidence and could have the charges reduced or dropped without having to accept a conviction. Thanks for reading my blog. If you have a comment or question, feel free to post it here, but keep in mind your posting will not be confidential. If you have been accused of DUI in Illinois, call or e-mail me for immediate assistance.
The HGN is one out of a battery of three tests developed by the NHTSA to assist a police officer in obtaining validated indicators of impairment and establish probable cause for an arrest. These three tests are referred to as the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST), and consist of the HGN, the walk and turn, and the one-leg stand.
The HGN test measures the extent that your eyes flicker back and forth while following a moving object such as a pen, a finger, or a small flashlight. The theory behind this test is that someone under the influence of alcohol will have difficulty following the object and that the eye flicker will occur early, while a person who is not under the influence will be able to track the object further. However, HGN test may indicate other substances besides alcohol such as seizure medications, phencyclidine, a variety of inhalants, barbiturates, and other depressants.
In the McKown case, Joanne McKown was involved in an accident involving her vehicle and three motorcycles. Ms. McKown admitted to having two beers before leaving her home and a third while driving. Ms. McKown was transported a hospital for treatment for a broken toe. While in a hospital bed, an officer administered the HGN test, which he determined Ms. McKown failed. No other field sobriety test was administered, since Ms. McKown had a broken toe and could not walk properly. The officer admitted that he knew McKown had been administered medication while in the hospital, drugs that could have affected the HGN results.
Ms. McKown was charged with multiple counts of DUI and reckless driving. She refused to submit to chemical testing until a search warrant was issued several hours later. Blood samples taken from McKown did not detect the presence of any alcohol, and the only evidence of her impairment was the failed HGN test.
The Illinois Supreme Court did not find McKown to be innocent of the charges; rather, it determined that an evidentiary hearing must be conducted to establish the reliability of the HGN test. The case was therefore remanded back to the trial court.
If you are arrested for a DUI in Illinois, you must contact an attorney immediately.
A lawyer experienced in defending people accused of DUI can challenge the prosecutor’s evidence and could have the charges reduced or dropped without having to accept a conviction. Thanks for reading my blog. If you have a comment or question, feel free to post it here, but keep in mind your posting will not be confidential. If you have been accused of DUI in Illinois, call or e-mail me for immediate assistance.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
DUI Courts Offer Alternative to Jail
Drivers accused of driving under the influence (DUI) may soon be appearing in special DUI courts rather than criminal court. These special courts are designed to offer court-supervised substance abuse treatment. The system is based on a model that has proven to be effective in the treatment of drug offenders. While drug courts have been in existence for over two decades, DUI courts are a more recent development, with the first DUI courts being established in 1997-1998.
According to the National Center for DWI Courts, there are currently 110 DUI courts in existence nationwide. In addition, there are 286 drug courts, including 2 in Illinois, which act as hybrid courts, currently serving both drug and DUI offenders. Studies have shown that participants in DUI court have a substantially lower rate of a repeat offense or recidivism; over a two-year period, offenders who went through the regular criminal justice system were 19 times more likely to be arrested for another DUI than those who went through the DUI court system.
The specialized DUI court system also offers economic advantages over the criminal court system. According to the Illinois Attorney General, it costs approximately $23,812 a year to incarcerate someone, as opposed to the $2,000 annual cost per participant in the DUI Court treatment program. The annual savings is thus approximately $21,000 per person.
The DUI court system recognizes that alcohol behavior is influenced by genetic and biological influences. The focus is on treatment and education, not incarceration. Participants undergo long-term treatment (typically 12 months), frequent testing to ensure abstinence from alcohol, counseling, and court appearances involving interaction with a judge. Their progress is carefully monitored and evaluated.
DUI court is an alternative to going to jail and can help some people break the cycle of an addiction to alcohol. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to leave a response to this posting, but keep in mind that your response will not be kept confidential. If you have been arrested for DUI in the Chicago area, contact an experienced DUI attorney immediately to protect and preserve your rights. If you are facing a DUI/DWI charge, call me to discuss your options and alternatives.
According to the National Center for DWI Courts, there are currently 110 DUI courts in existence nationwide. In addition, there are 286 drug courts, including 2 in Illinois, which act as hybrid courts, currently serving both drug and DUI offenders. Studies have shown that participants in DUI court have a substantially lower rate of a repeat offense or recidivism; over a two-year period, offenders who went through the regular criminal justice system were 19 times more likely to be arrested for another DUI than those who went through the DUI court system.
The specialized DUI court system also offers economic advantages over the criminal court system. According to the Illinois Attorney General, it costs approximately $23,812 a year to incarcerate someone, as opposed to the $2,000 annual cost per participant in the DUI Court treatment program. The annual savings is thus approximately $21,000 per person.
The DUI court system recognizes that alcohol behavior is influenced by genetic and biological influences. The focus is on treatment and education, not incarceration. Participants undergo long-term treatment (typically 12 months), frequent testing to ensure abstinence from alcohol, counseling, and court appearances involving interaction with a judge. Their progress is carefully monitored and evaluated.
DUI court is an alternative to going to jail and can help some people break the cycle of an addiction to alcohol. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to leave a response to this posting, but keep in mind that your response will not be kept confidential. If you have been arrested for DUI in the Chicago area, contact an experienced DUI attorney immediately to protect and preserve your rights. If you are facing a DUI/DWI charge, call me to discuss your options and alternatives.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Charges Against Former Lake County Chief Judge May Be Dropped After Death of Arresting Officer
Former Lake County Chief Judge David Hall is facing charges of driving under the influence and resisting arrest following an incident on Illinois Highway 60 on April 26th. Hall was arrested by Vernon Hills officer Jesse Goldsmith, who passed away on June 2nd from a heart attack. According to the Chicago Tribune, prosecutors from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office have indicated that they will speak to the second officer who provided backup to the arresting officer before determining whether or not to continue prosecuting the case. Goldsmith’s death could result in the inadmissibility of the arrest report.
According to Goldsmith’s report, he pulled Hall over after observing Hall weaving over the center line. Hall refused to submit to field sobriety and Breathalyzer tests. Goldsmith’s report states that he detected a strong odor of alcohol from Hall. Hall has entered a plea of not guilty to the charges and has asserted that Goldsmith pepper sprayed him without provocation while Hall was seated in his vehicle. According to Goldsmith’s report, he pepper sprayed Hall after Hall refused to exit his vehicle.
Videotapes of the arrest are not available; one camera had a malfunction, and the hard drive on the other camera was full. Defense attorneys for Hall have filed a motion to quash the arrest report and have filed a motion to toss out his arrest, based on the contention that Goldsmith lacked probable cause to stop Hall’s car.
Goldsmith would likely have testified at Hall’s trial, since arresting officers are routinely called to testify on the events leading to the arrest and on the information contained in their reports. According to various news accounts, the second officer arrived on the scene after Hall had been stopped. The second officer therefore will not be able to testify on Hall’s driving and the events leading to the actual traffic stop.
Will the testimony of the second officer, who did not witness Hall actually driving the vehicle, be sufficient for a conviction for DUI? In Illinois, a police officer does not have to observe you in the act of driving while intoxicated in order for you to be convicted of a DUI. When prosecuting you for drunk driving, the state must prove that you were under the influence of alcohol while you were driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle. However, the elements of the offense must be established by evidence and not by conjecture or speculation. In other words, the State must prove that there is sufficient proof of facts tending to show intoxication and that the defendant was at the same time driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient. For example, where a police officer observed a lone occupant of a vehicle slumped over the wheel of a running vehicle at 5:30am, the court ruled that although the officer did not see the person actually driving the vehicle, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to show the defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle.
Hall has stepped down as Chief Judge of Lake County, although he remains a judge and has been assigned to administrative duties. To avoid a potential conflict, Hall’s case is being prosecuted by the Illinois Attorney General’s office rather than the Lake County prosecutors. A judge from Kane County has been brought in to hear the case.
It will be interesting to see how the tragic turn of events in this case impacts the case against Hall and any other pending cases in which Officer Goldsmith was the arresting officer. Thanks for reading my blog. If you have a comment, please feel free to post it here, but keep in mind your comments will not be confidential. If you have been accused of a DUI or traffic violation, contact me for a free, confidential consultation.
According to Goldsmith’s report, he pulled Hall over after observing Hall weaving over the center line. Hall refused to submit to field sobriety and Breathalyzer tests. Goldsmith’s report states that he detected a strong odor of alcohol from Hall. Hall has entered a plea of not guilty to the charges and has asserted that Goldsmith pepper sprayed him without provocation while Hall was seated in his vehicle. According to Goldsmith’s report, he pepper sprayed Hall after Hall refused to exit his vehicle.
Videotapes of the arrest are not available; one camera had a malfunction, and the hard drive on the other camera was full. Defense attorneys for Hall have filed a motion to quash the arrest report and have filed a motion to toss out his arrest, based on the contention that Goldsmith lacked probable cause to stop Hall’s car.
Goldsmith would likely have testified at Hall’s trial, since arresting officers are routinely called to testify on the events leading to the arrest and on the information contained in their reports. According to various news accounts, the second officer arrived on the scene after Hall had been stopped. The second officer therefore will not be able to testify on Hall’s driving and the events leading to the actual traffic stop.
Will the testimony of the second officer, who did not witness Hall actually driving the vehicle, be sufficient for a conviction for DUI? In Illinois, a police officer does not have to observe you in the act of driving while intoxicated in order for you to be convicted of a DUI. When prosecuting you for drunk driving, the state must prove that you were under the influence of alcohol while you were driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle. However, the elements of the offense must be established by evidence and not by conjecture or speculation. In other words, the State must prove that there is sufficient proof of facts tending to show intoxication and that the defendant was at the same time driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient. For example, where a police officer observed a lone occupant of a vehicle slumped over the wheel of a running vehicle at 5:30am, the court ruled that although the officer did not see the person actually driving the vehicle, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to show the defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle.
Hall has stepped down as Chief Judge of Lake County, although he remains a judge and has been assigned to administrative duties. To avoid a potential conflict, Hall’s case is being prosecuted by the Illinois Attorney General’s office rather than the Lake County prosecutors. A judge from Kane County has been brought in to hear the case.
It will be interesting to see how the tragic turn of events in this case impacts the case against Hall and any other pending cases in which Officer Goldsmith was the arresting officer. Thanks for reading my blog. If you have a comment, please feel free to post it here, but keep in mind your comments will not be confidential. If you have been accused of a DUI or traffic violation, contact me for a free, confidential consultation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
