People v. Schaefer
| Decision Date | 25 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | 72946 and 72996,Nos. 72884,s. 72884 |
| Citation | 182 Ill.Dec. 26,154 Ill.2d 250,609 N.E.2d 329 |
| Parties | , 182 Ill.Dec. 26 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Harold SCHAEFER, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Robert Michael HILL, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Jack E. PUCKETT, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Stephen M. Komie and Marco A. Raimondi, Komie and Associates, Chicago, for appellant in No. 72884.
Roland W. Burris, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Jack O'Malley, State's Atty., Chicago (Terence M. Madsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, and Renee Goldfarb, Randall E. Roberts, Theodore Fotios Burtzos and David J. Stabrawa, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People in Nos. 72884 & 72946.
Richard H. Parsons and Kevin F. Sullivan, Peoria, for amicus curiae Illinois Attorneys for Criminal Justice in Nos. 72884, 72946 & 72996.
Rex L. Reu, of Thomson & Weintraub, Bloomington, for appellant in No. 72946.
Roland W. Burris, Atty. Gen., Springfield, Marshall E. Douglas, State's Atty., Rock Island, and Jack O'Malley, State's Atty., Chicago , for the People in No. 72996.
Mark A. Appleton and Gregory J. McHugh, of Appleton & McHugh, Aledo, for appellee.
In these consolidated appeals, we are asked to decide when the statutory 30-day period within which a hearing must be held on a defendant's petition to rescind the summary suspension of driving privileges commences to run.
In each of the cases, it is undisputed that the defendant's challenge to the summary suspension of driving privileges must be heard within the statutory 30-day period, unless the delay is occasioned by the defendant, and that failure to conduct the hearing within the 30-day period violated the defendants' due process rights. In re Summary Suspension of Driver's License of Trainor (1987), 156 Ill.App.3d 918, 923, 109 Ill.Dec. 746, 510 N.E.2d 614.
This court held, in People v. Gerke (1988), 123 Ill.2d 85, 121 Ill.Dec. 262, 525 N.E.2d 68, that the statute at issue created two alternative dates for hearing on a defendant's challenge to summary suspension: (1) on the first court date set in the traffic citation issued to the motorist (which must be between 14 and 49 days after the date of the arrest) (134 Ill.2d R. 504); or (2) within 30 days of a defendant's written request for a hearing on his petition to rescind (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, par. 2-118.1(b)). It was contemplated that the motion to rescind made on the court date set by the traffic citation could be oral or written. These consolidated cases do not involve an oral motion for a hearing on the date set in the traffic citation.
Each of the cases before us involves the filing of a written petition to rescind the summary suspension of driving privileges with the clerk of the circuit court of venue. The governing statute, section 2-118.1(b) of the Illinois Vehicle Code, provides in relevant part:
Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, par. 2-118.1(b).
In order to analyze the common issue presented in these cases, it is first necessary to explain the Illinois statutory scheme for dealing with those who drive while under the influence of an intoxicating substance. Pursuant to section 11-501 of the Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-501), individuals are prohibited from driving any vehicle within Illinois while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or a controlled substance. Any person convicted of violating this statute is subject to criminal penalties. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, pars. 11-501(c), (d).
In addition to criminal penalties, motorists are subject to suspension of their drivers' licenses. Under section 11-501.1 of the Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-501.1), any person who drives on an Illinois public highway and is arrested for violating section 11-501 is deemed to have given implied consent to a blood, breath, or urine test to determine whether he or she is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Prior to administering the test, the officer is required to warn the driver that refusal to take the test or failure to pass the test will result in the suspension of his or her driving privileges. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-501.1(c).) An individual fails a blood, breath or urine test if his or her alcohol concentration is 0.10 or greater, or if the presence of cannabis or any controlled substance is detected. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-501.1(c).) The Illinois legislature has determined that drivers impaired by alcohol or drugs pose a threat to "public safety and welfare," and that the suspension of driving privileges represents an appropriate means to deter and remove these "problem drivers" from the highway. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-206.1.
Once a driver fails or refuses testing, the officer must serve the person with notice of the suspension of his or her driving privileges, which becomes effective 46 days after notice of the suspension is given. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, pars. 11-501.1(f), (g).) In addition, the officer must submit a sworn report, regarding the driver's refusal to take the test or failure to pass the test, to the circuit court of venue and the Secretary of State. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-501.1(d).) Upon receipt of this report, the Secretary of State notes the suspension on the person's driving record for the period set forth in section 6-208.1 of the Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-208.1 (establishing the length of time for which a person's driving privileges may be suspended)), and confirms the suspension by mailing notice of the effective date of suspension to the motorist and the court of venue (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, pars. 11-501.1(e), (h)). This court has held that the summary suspension of a driver's license as provided for in section 11-501.1 does not violate an individual's due process rights under the United States Constitution or the Illinois Constitution. People v. Esposito (1988), 121 Ill.2d 491, 118 Ill.Dec. 396, 521 N.E.2d 873.
In conjunction with notice of the impending suspension, the driver must also be informed that he or she has the right to request a hearing on the suspension pursuant to section 2-118.1 of the Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, par. 2-118.1). In People v. Gerke (1988), 123 Ill.2d 85, 93, 121 Ill.Dec. 262, 525 N.E.2d 68, this court held that the statutory summary suspension of a driver's license is an administrative function of the Secretary of State.
It is significant that the statutory summary suspension is an administrative function of the Secretary of State. In compliance with this statutory administrative function, the Secretary of State mails a confirmation of the effective date of the suspension to the motorist and the court of venue. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11- 501.1(h).) The form used by the Secretary of State is entitled:
In pertinent part, it states:
The petition must state which issue(s) listed below you are using as grounds upon which to have the Summary Suspension rescinded. The hearing will be limited to the issue(s) specified in the petition.
a. Whether you were lawfully placed under arrest for violation of Section 11-501, or a similar provision of a local ordinance, relating to driving while under the influence of alcohol, other drug, or combination thereof;
b. Whether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that you were driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, other drug, or combination thereof;
c. Whether you were advised of your rights under Section 11-501.1 of The Illinois Vehicle Code;
d. Whether you...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Middaugh, 45 MAP 2019
...... Accord People v. Schaefer , 154 Ill.2d 250, 182 Ill.Dec. 26, 609 N.E.2d 329, 331 (1993) ("The Illinois legislature has determined that drivers impaired by alcohol ......
-
People v. Wear
......O'Connor, 313 Ill.App.3d 134, 136, 245 Ill.Dec. 818, 728 N.E.2d 1175, 1177 (2000). For that reason, "[t]he dismissal of a criminal charge does not result in an automatic rescission of the suspension." (Emphasis in original.) People v. Schaefer, 154 Ill.2d 250, 257-58, 182 Ill. Dec. 26, 609 N.E.2d 329, 332 (1993). . Defendant argues that the appeal from the rescission of the summary suspension "should [also] be dismissed because it is a violation of the plea agreement," under which the State agreed to dismiss case No. ......
-
People v. Motzko, Appeal No. 3–16–0154
...a statutory summary suspension 78 N.E.3d 526 based solely on the disposition of the underlying criminal proceedings. People v. Schaefer , 154 Ill.2d 250, 257–58, 182 Ill.Dec. 26, 609 N.E.2d 329 (1993) ; People v. Gerke , 123 Ill.2d 85, 95, 121 Ill.Dec. 262, 525 N.E.2d 68 (1988).¶ 37 Section......
-
People v. Ciechanowski
......718, 871 N.E.2d 118, 121 (2007). . Section 11-501 of the Illinois Vehicle Code prohibits individuals from driving any vehicle within the state of Illinois while under the influence of alcohol. 625 ILCS 5/11-501 (West 2004); see also People v. Schaefer, 154 Ill.2d 250, 254, 182 Ill.Dec. 26, 609 N.E.2d 329, 331 (1993). Violators are subject to both criminal penalties and civil sanctions. Schaefer, 154 Ill.2d at 254-55, 182 Ill.Dec. 26, 609 N.E.2d at 331. The criminal penalties range, depending on various factors, from punishment as a Class A ......