People v. Jordan
| Court | Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Citation | People v. Jordan, 783 N.E.2d 208, 336 Ill. App.3d 288, 270 Ill.Dec. 633 (Ill. App. 2003) |
| Decision Date | 17 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-01-1180.,2-01-1180. |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Benjamin J. JORDAN, Defendant-Appellee. |
Gary W. Pack, McHenry County State's Attorney, Woodstock, Martin P. Moltz, Deputy Director, Gregory L. Slovacek, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Elgin, for the People.
William C. Gracik, Donahue & Corbett, P.C., McHenry, for Benjamin J. Jordan.
The State appeals from an order of the circuit court of McHenry County dismissing the statutory summary suspension pursuant to section 11—501.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Code) (625 ILCS 5/11-501.1 (West 2000)) of the driving privileges of defendant, Benjamin J. Jordan. The State contends that the trial court erred in concluding that defendant was entitled to relief because the arresting officer failed to give immediate notice of the suspension. We reverse and remand.
Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or intoxicating compounds (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11-501 (West 2000)) on May 26, 2001, at which time he consented to have blood drawn and tested. On July 23, 2001, the arresting officer submitted a sworn report indicating that testing of defendant's blood disclosed the presence of cannabis, a controlled substance, or an intoxicating compound. The sworn report further indicated that on July 23, 2001, the officer had given notice, by mail, of the statutory summary suspension of defendant's driving privileges. The Secretary of State mailed a notice of confirmation of the statutory summary suspension indicating that it would take effect on September 7, 2001. Defendant filed a petition to rescind the suspension. In addition, he filed a separate motion to "dismiss" the summary suspension due to the arresting officer's failure to give him immediate notice of the summary suspension and the right to a hearing. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the arresting officer testified that after defendant's blood was drawn, the sample was sent to the Illinois State Police Crime Laboratory. The officer identified a letter to him from the laboratory dated June 20, 2001, containing the test results. The officer had no knowledge of when the letter was sent and he did not recall when he received it. Finding that there was an unreasonable delay from the time that the blood test results were known until the notice of the statutory summary suspension was mailed to defendant, the trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss. At that point defendant withdrew his petition to rescind and this appeal followed.
Section 11-501.1 of the Vehicle Code (Code) provides in pertinent part:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
People v. Grabeck
...on the defendant or send notice to the defendant via mail. 625 ILCS 5/11–501.1(f) (West 2008); People v. Jordan, 336 Ill.App.3d 288, 291, 270 Ill.Dec. 633, 783 N.E.2d 208 (2003). “The statutory summary suspension and disqualification referred to in this Section shall take effect on the 46th......
-
§ 4.7 Court Action
...It was reversible error by the trial court in barring the Village from calling the defendant as an adverse witness. People v. Jordan, 336 Ill. App. 3d 288, 783 N.E.2d 208, 270 Ill. Dec. 633 (2d Dist. 2003). Defendant was arrested for DUI and he consented to have his blood drawn and tested o......