DuPage DUI lawyer Marilyn A. Miller wants persons charged with a first DUI in Illinois to be aware that Illinois Senate Bill 300 was signed into law on August 24, 2007 and became effective January 1, 2009. P.A. 95-0400. It requires all first-time Illinois DUI offenders who wish to drive during their statutory summary suspension to install a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device on the vehicle they wish to drive during the statutory summar suspension.
A person must provide a breath sample into the Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device prior to starting the vehicle and at random intervals throughout the travel time. The BAIID uses advanced technology to read the persons Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). A BAIID is hooked to the ignition of the car and prevents the person from starting the car if their breath sample registers a .05 or higher. If the breath sample is negative for alcohol, the person will be able to start their car without incident.
In addition, Senate Bill 300 increases the statutory summary suspension times as follows: For offenders who refuse testing at the time they are pulled over, their suspension times will go from the current 6 months to 12 months. For those that take the test and fail, their suspension will double from the current 3 months to 6 months.
Contact Marilyn A. Miller by email or call 630-424-8816.
DUI lawyer Marilyn A. Miller wants you to know that eligible first-time DUI offenders who are arrested on or after January 1, 2009, have the option of obtaining a Monitoring Device Driving Permit by request to the Illinois Secretary of State. The Monitoring Device Driving Permit replaces the Judicial Driving Permit. The offender has the option of not participating in the program, but will have no other option for driving relief during the Statutory Summary Suspension.
Under Illinois law, the Monitoring Device Driving Permit allows the offender to drive after serving 30 days of the statutory summary suspension (which will either be 6 months or 12 months, depending on failure or refusal of Field Sobriety Test. The MDDP requires that the offender install a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device in any vehicle the offender plans on driving during the term of the statutory summary suspension. The MDDP allows the offender to drive anywhere at anytime so long as the vehicle being driven has a BAIID installed (as opposed to the Judicial Driving Permit which restricted the offender to certain hours and certain destinations). A Monitoring Device Driving Permit holder found driving a car without a BAIID during the statutory summary suspension will be guilty of a Class 4 felony. An offender who chooses not to obtain a Monitoring Device Driving Permit and is then caught driving during the statutory summary suspension will be guilty of a Class 4 felony.
A Monitoring Device Driving Permit will not allow a Commercial Drivers License holder to operate a Commercial Motor Vehicle during the offender’s statutory summary suspension. Monitoring Device Driving Permit holders may be eligible for a work exemption if driving employer owned cars during the course of work hours and if the car is not specifically assigned to the offender.
By Marilyn Miller
The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously recently that police can not search the contents of a cellphone seized during an arrest, unless they get a
warrant. The Court held that such warrantless searches violate the Fourth Amendment which prohibits the Government from engaging in unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Court reasoned that cellphones are minicomputers that hold vast amounts of personal data. Such devices are different from physical objects police are allowed to seize without a warrant in searches incident to arrest.
In the two cases addressed by the Supreme Court, Riley v. California attracted the most scrutiny. Riley was stopped by police for expired registration tags and it was determined that his license was suspended. In such a situation, police may legally search a person as well as the area within his immediate control without probable cause when a search is “incident to arrest”. This exception arises to ensure the safety of the officer and to prevent the possible destruction of evidence of crime.
Police then searched Riley incident to his arrest and seized his cellphone from his pocket. Thereafter, the police examined the contents of the phone and found evidence of Riley’s membership in a street gang. This evidence lead to additional charges filed in connection with an earlier shooting.
In this case, it was apparent that the warrantless exception to searches did not apply. It was not needed to protect the officer or to preserve evidence. The Court noted the distinguishing features of the modern cellphone are their immense storage capacity and the personal information they contain in digital format. The Court held that it is just this kind of private information the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect.
The result in Riley was that the search was illegal and the evidence obtained was excluded from the jury’s consideration under the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusion of this kind of evidence would usually result in making it impossible for the Government to prove the charges which was the outcome of Riley’s case as to the gang-related charges. The only evidence left against Riley was the driving while license suspended charge which could be pursued.
Given the great prevalence of cellphones today, this case has particular significance to individuals charged with serious criminal offenses including driving under the influence or DUI where the suspect is carrying a cellphone which may be accessible to police who are conducting a search upon the arrest of that person.