Did you think the Police have to follow rules? Come on! It's a DUI - they can just almost comply

Just step right up and take that breath test. Procedures? What procedures? We don't need no stinking procedures!

That's right ladies and gentlemen, In Illinois DUI arrests, the State can not only require that you be "tested" to see if you have violated DUI law after you are already under arrest, not only can they ignore the scientifically accepted standard of replicate testing, but according to this recent gem of a case, "substantial compliance" (that means just about sort of maybe compliance) is just fine. Way to go!

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2010/2ndDistrict/June/2080098.pdf

Illinois DUI law and Obama Drug Policy: Smoke Pot Months Ago, Get a DUI

Here's an interesting article on DUI based on marijuana:

Opposing Views: Obama Drug Policy: Smoke Pot Months Ago, Get a DUI

In Illinois, even the presence of a metabolite of marijuana in the blood or urine of a motorist is a criminal offense. A metabolite is an inert substance (meaning a substance that has no effect) that is left over in the blood or urine even after the active substance which might cause impairment is no longer present. This is an absurdity in Illinois DUI law which means that even if a driver smoked marijuana a day earlier and is not currently impaired or affected in any way while driving, he or she will still be found guilty of committing the offense of DUI.

Such a law may have made sense decades ago when more specific methods of testing for the presence of intoxicating substances like marijuana were not readily available, but nowadays, this law makes the "stupid" pile.

Illinois traffic arrest leads to a fatal DUI

Child killed in Steger crash after police stop - chicagotribune.com

Posted using ShareThis

Judge throws out DUI evidence against Chicago cop in fatal crash :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State

Every day, seasoned criminal and DUI defense lawyers in Illinois rail against weak investigations that result in DUI arrests. In particular, Chicago police officers are poorly trained for DUI enforcement, minimally document their investigations (most DUI reports written by Chicago Police officers contain only a single paragraph or two recording the entirety of their observations), and are rarely held to a high standard. This creates a two-edged sword, which can clearly be seen in recent decision of a Cook County, Illinois Judge which will result in dismissal of DUI and Reckless homicide charges against Chicago police officer John Ardelean.

Judge throws out DUI evidence against Chicago cop in fatal crash :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State

Two young men were killed in a crash involving Mr. Ardelean, and the anguish of the parents of these boys could have been averted. If officers had investigated with proper procedure, careful testing according to standardized and established practices, they could have either eliminated the suspicion that Mr. Ardelean was under the influence of alcohol then and there, or have built a well-founded case for DUI against him that would withstand the careful scrutiny of the Judge.

The blame for this case falling apart does not lie at the feet of the Judge. Judge Gainer simply did his job, examined the facts presented and weighed those facts in light of legal standards that form the backbone of our system of criminal justice. The blame does not fall at the feet of Mr. Ardelean's defense attorney, who again, simply raised and pursued a valid challenge that any carefully investigated matter ought to withstand if cool professionalism rules the minds and hearts of those who enforce our laws.

The blame clearly falls on the administration of the Chicago police, who despite repeated challenges in Court hearings, still have not installed video recording equipment in vehicles of officers assigned to DUI enforcement. Officers still regularly testify that they don't know about, or even have never heard of, the NHSTA's training manual on DUI Detection and Enforcement, despite the fact that it is part of the training all police officers receive for training in DUI enforcement. Chicago DUI officers still write one or two paragraph reports, as opposed to their suburban counterparts, who typically fill out multiple typewritten pages. This is a drag on our system resulting in bad arrests and resulting in dismissals of weak cases that could have been handled better.

The CPD could be far better, but it remains to be seen if the Chicago police department will react to this very public dismissal with a determination to raise their standards.

Interview with Illinois DUI Lawyer Steven Fagan

Interview with DUI Lawyer Steven Fagan on the subject of the Chicago DUI arrest of Garritt Cullerton for DUI, son of Illinois Senator John Cullerton.

Not enough DUI defendants paying for a BAIID? There's a fix for that . . .

Apparently, far, far fewer defendants than expected opted in to a special permit to drive called an MDDP. Those accused of DUI in Illinois for the first time within the preceding five years have the option to apply for an MDDP or "Monitoring Device Driving Permit" and install a BAIID or "Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device" in their car. The cost of doing so is often prohibitive.

Nevertheless, legislators and BAIID providers were looking for about 40,000 motorists to participate state-wide last year. They got about 6500, and they are not happy.

Some of the problem comes from a strange holdover provision from previous legislation that appeared to serve no purpose other than to add a layer of bureaucracy. The application process as it now stands requires a Judge to approve a DUI defendant's application for an MDDP. This is typically done by asking the exact same questions the motorist would fill out on their application. And the same information the Secretary of State has already at their fingertips. In response to this waste of time and resources, some Judges have far overstepped their admittedly custodial function in this process and actually taken to denying MDDP applications under circumstances the law would otherwise allow. The law as written does not grant the Court any such discretion.

Another issue standing in the way of more MDDP issuance is the fact that those Defendants represented by the office of the Public Defender are not getting a fair shake. The law defining the role of the Public Defender actually prohibits these lawyers from advising their clients on matters relating to their suspension or from representing their clients in regards to any matter regarding their suspension before the Court. Essentially, the Public Defender must stand there and not help their client. Not surprisingly, many indigent defendants who might otherwise request an MDDP don't even really understand the option.

A recent bill introduced in the State Senate, SB3775, seeks to address these impediments by trimming the added layer of the Court and streamlining the process. The idea is that once the Secretary of State confirms a suspension will begin, they'll send the MDDP application along to the motorist, who can then fill out and return the application directly to the Secretary of State.

Sounds great, right?

Apparently not to BAIID manufacturers. They've come to Springfield with their own ideas, proposing that motorists who opt out of the MDDP program pay a higher reinstatement fee than those who opt in. Illinois' legislators should be bright enough to see this strongarm tactic for what it is, and also that such a change to the law would not withstand scrutiny in light of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

Weakening the 4th amendment . . .

If the Obama administration gets its way, federal law enforcement and local police agencies will be able to dig into cell phone location data and find YOU without a warrant any old time they please. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure by the government, and two important questions raised are:

• is there a valid expectation of privacy at all in such information;
• if so, is this an unreasonable search?

What does this have to do with DUI in Illinois? 4th amendment issues are regularly tested in DUI arrest situations. You see, almost all DUI arrests involve investigations that are immediate in nature, and happen without any warrant. Getting a warrant slows things down and requires that a judge hear why an investigation needs to go further - the judge determines whether "probable cause" exists to allow a search. This makes on-site investigation difficult, but provides strong protection to rights of the person being investigated. The police would rather not wait, and so, most investigations proceed without warrant. A warrantless search is presumed to violate 4th amendment protection, unless probable cause can be demonstrated.

The practical result is that police typically investigate with an eye towards establishing probable cause (as opposed to investigating with an eye towards exoneration). They'd rather arrest now and ask questions later than slow down and ask careful questions.

Add to this the fact that government is always seeking to expand their ability to "get around" the restrictions of the 4th amendment, and you have your connection between DUI and the Justice Department's desire to track anyone they please by cell-phone without a warrant.

Everything is connected, and the possibility for abuse of power increases every time the power to invade the rights of the individual are pushed further down the chain of command. Let's hope the Courts push back.