People v. Young, 78-113

• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: WOODWARD; GUILD, P. J., and NASH
• Citation: 76 Ill.App.3d 210,30 Ill.Dec. 135,392 N.E.2d 790
• Parties: , 30 Ill.Dec. 135 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael A. YOUNG, Defendant-Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 78-113,78-113
• Decision Date: 27 July 1979

Page 790

392 N.E.2d 790 76 Ill.App.3d 210, 30 Ill.Dec. 135 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Michael A. YOUNG, Defendant-Appellee. No. 78-113. Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District. July 27, 1979.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 15, 1979.

T. Jordan Gallagher, State's Atty., Sycamore, Phyllis J. Perko, Jan Tuckerman, State's Attys. Appellate Service Commission, Elgin, for plaintiff-appellant.

Mary Robinson, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Richard E. Cunningham, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Elgin, for defendant-appellee.

WOODWARD, Justice:

This case arises from a hit-and-run traffic accident. After the accident, two witnesses reported the license number of the car that left [76 Ill.App.3d 211] the scene. Police checked the registration of the vehicle, and called the owner in Arlington Heights, who said that his son, Michael, had the car at school. Police then called the son and asked him to come to the station to speak about the accident. Defendant arrived at the station within 48 hours of the accident; he was asked for his driver's license, which he surrendered. Police used the license to fill in parts of an accident form begun at the scene, and defendant was then advised of his Miranda rights. Police then asked some questions and used defendant's answers to further complete the accident form and prepare a follow-up report. Subsequently, defendant was charged with leaving the scene of an accident (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1977, ch. 951/2, par. 11-401(a)) and with driving too fast for conditions (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1977, ch. 951/2, par.

Page 791

[30 Ill.Dec. 136] 11-601(a)). Defendant made a motion which was styled a motion to suppress the report and all statements he made to the police, the motion being based on Ill.Rev.Stat., 1977, ch. 951/2, par. 11-401(b), which provides in pertinent part:

"(b) Any person who has failed to stop or to comply with said requirements shall, within 48 hours after such accident * * * report the place of accident, the date, the approximate time, his name, address, the registration number of the vehicle driven, and the names of the occupants, if any, of such vehicle, at a police station or sheriff's office near the place where such accident occurred. No report made as required under this Subsection shall be used, directly or indirectly, as a basis for the prosecution of any violation of Subsection (a) of this Section."

After a hearing, defendant's motion was granted and the state appeals.

A threshold question is whether the state has the right to appeal from the order which suppressed the evidence. Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1977, ch. 110A, par. 604(a)(1)) provides:

"When State May Appeal. In criminal cases the State may appeal only from an order or judgment the substantive effect of which results in dismissing a charge for any of the grounds enumerated in section 114-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963; arresting judgment because of a defective indictment, information or complaint; quashing an...