Tag Archives: Chicago DUI Lawyer

Illiniois DUI Law

DUI Evaluation

DUI Evaluation

DuPage DUI lawyer Marilyn A. Miller wants you to know what Illiniois DUI requires those convicted of DUI.  Illinois law requires DUI offenders to complete a DUI evaluation prior to final sentencing or an order for supervision.  The Illinois Vehicle Code, 625 ILCS 5/11-501.01(a), provides:

After a finding of guilt and prior to any final sentencing or an order for supervision, for an offense based upon an arrest for a violation of Section 11-501 or a similar provision of a local ordinance, individuals shall be required to undergo a professional evaluation to determine if an alcohol, drug, or intoxicating compound abuse problem exists and the extent of the problem, and undergo the imposition of treatment as appropriate.

The DUI evaluation determines whether the defendant has a substance abuse problem and his likelihood of reoffending. The DUI evaluator interviews the defendant about his past and present use of alcohol and drugs.  In addition, she reviews the Notice of Statutory Summary Suspension or Revocation, defendant’s driving record, and the chemical test results.

DUI Classes

In addition, Illinois DUI law requires the defendant convicted of DUI to undergo DUI treatment prior to sentencing.  The legal system refers to DUI treatment as “DUI classes.”  DUI classes include at least 10 hours of DUI Risk Education and substance abuse treatment for defendant’s at significant or high risk to reoffend.

In DuPage County, Illinois, DuPage County Probation and Court Services conducts DUI evaluations.

Illiniois DUI Law

DuPage County DUI Lawyer – Defenses to DUI in Illinois

DuPage County DUI lawyer Marilyn Miller wants you to know how to fight Illinois DUI charges.   Below is list of possible DUI defenses and issues a good DUI lawyer should consider:

1. Did the police have reasonable suspicion / the legal right to pull you over?

2. Was there probable cause to make a DUI arrest?

3. Did the police need consent to search your vehicle?  Did the police have consent to search your vehicle?

4. Was the breathalyzer or intoxilyzer working properly?

5. Were the field sobriety tests and breathalyzer tests administered as required by law?

6. Did the police force you to make incriminating statements?

If you are charged with DUI in Illinois, contact Wheaton DUI lawyer Marilyn Miller by email or call 630-424-8816 for further information on how to defend or beat your DUI charges.

Illiniois DUI Law

DUI Breathalyzer Test Refusal

3 Comments

DUI Breathalyzer Test Refusal

DUI Breathalyzer Test Refusal.  Should Illinois drivers pulled over for or arrested for DUI refuse a breathalyzer test?  Wheaton DUI lawyer Marilyn Miller wants you to know your rights when pulled over or arrested for DUI.

Probable Cause to Arrest

A police officer needs probable cause to arrest a driver for DUI. Probable cause exists when a reasonable person concludes that a driver has committed an offense.  This conclusion can arise from the officer’s observations of the driver’s manner of driving as well as observations of the driver after the traffic stop.  These observations can include the driver’s slurred speech, blood shot eyes, strong odor of alcohol, admission to drinking, fumbling with license, and inability to follow instructions.

Field Sobriety Tests

Typically, an officer will require a driver to complete the Field Sobriety Tests or FST.   These tests may include a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test or HGN, a Walk-and-Turn test, and a One-leg Stand test.  The officer will also ask the driver to take a Preliminary Breathalyzer Test or PBT which consists of a hand-held device for testing the driver’s breath at the scene.  The PBT provides an estimate of the blood-alcohol level of the driver.   Therefore, the PBT helps establish probable cause for a DUI arrest.  By law, a driver may refuse to take this Preliminary Breathalyzer Test without consequences to his driving privileges.

Consequences of Refusing Breathalyzer

After a driver is actually arrested for DUI, the driver cannot refuse the official breath, blood or urine test without consequence.  The official chemical test is typically given at the police station after an arrest for a DUI.  If a driver is arrested for DUI and refuses to submit to a such test, the driver faces a 12-month statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges.  Those arrested for DUI who submit to the tests face a 6-month statutory summary sususpension for a failed test (i.e., a chemical test which disclosed an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, or any amount of a drug, substance, or intoxicating compound in such person’s breath, blood, or urine resulting from the unlawful use or consumption).  625 ILCS 5/11-501.1(a) and 625 ILCS 6-208.1(a).

Admissibility of Field Sobriety Tests

As to the HGN test, the prosecution has to establish the scientific basis for the reliability of this test.  However, the Court will admit the FST evidence based solely only the officer’s personal observations and conclusions.

The driver can agree to take FST and the PBT if he/she can pass the tests.  However, drivers often find it difficult to perform the FSTs even when when sober.  In addition, the Court may easily admit the FST tests based on the officer’s personal observations and subjective conclusions. As to the PBT, it is an estimate only of the blood-alcohol level of the driver.  Moreover, the PBT is not admissible by the prosecution at the trial of an alleged DUI offense.

The police officer may record the FST on a video camera mounted in a squad car.  Further, the arresting officer must conduct all tests in conformity with the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) manual.  The validity of these tests is compromised if not properly administered as set forth in the NHTSA. A experienced DUI lawyer may cross exam the arresting officer on this issue.

If the driver believes that he can pass the Field Sobriety Tests and Preliminary Breathalyzer Test, then the driver can agree to take the tests.  However, the driver should politely refuse all tests if there is a possibility that the driver cannot pass the tests.

Illiniois DUI Law

Supreme Court Limits Police Searches of Cellphones

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.

Illiniois DUI Law

Chicago Man Charged with Aggravated DUI In Christmas Eve Crash That Killed Daughter

Leave a comment

According to The Chicago Tribune, a Chicago man from the Englewood neighborhood has been charged with aggravated DUI following the Christmas Eve crash that killed his 8-year-old daughter:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-man-charged-with-aggravated-dui-in-christmas-eve-crash-that-killed-daughter-8-20131227,0,2070945.story