Illinois high court OKs DUI eye test
HGN test asks person to follow pen or finger with eyes; reliance on it was questioned in McKown case
By ANDY KRAVETZ (akravetz@pjstar.com)
OF THE JOURNAL STAR
The Illinois Supreme Court on Friday upheld a DUI eye test commonly used by police as "generally accepted in the relevant scientific fields as evidence of alcohol consumption and possible impairment."
However, the justices sent the drunken-driving case of Joanne McKown back to Peoria County on the basis that prosecutors here didn't lay a proper legal foundation to show the horizontal gaze nystagmus test was properly administered.
HGN testing is based upon the premise that if a person has been drinking, his or her pupils would not follow a pen or a finger smoothly.
The unanimous decision by the seven justices in Springfield seems to settle the dispute over HGN testing for Illinois. The question is important because police officers statewide use the test as a benchmark to see if a person is under the influence.
What made McKown's 2002 traffic stop different from most stops is that the officer appears to relied almost exclusively on the HGN test to find she was intoxicated on June 8, 2002, when her car collided with three motorcycles on Maher Road.
The matter has been the subject of lengthy court hearings, including four marathon sessions in Peoria County Circuit Court in 2007 and 2008. The case also was reviewed by the 3rd District Appellate Court in Ottawa and the Illinois Supreme Court. The high court remanded the case to Peoria in 2007 for the 2007-2008 hearings to determine the science behind the testing.
McKown, 45, whose hometown is listed as Hanna City in court records, was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence and aggravated reckless driving at a 2003 bench trial and sentenced to two years in prison.
After the accident, a witnesses testified he smelled beer on her breath. The investigating officer also testified he smelled beer and said he found a half-empty beer can in her car. McKown, who was taken to the hospital after the crash, told him she drank beer earlier that day.
The officer did the HGN test at the hospital not long after the accident, and McKown failed. He did no other field sobriety tests because she had a broken toe. A blood test wasn't done for several hours because she resisted until she was court-ordered to give blood. When it was done, the test showed no alcohol in her system.
The appellate court upheld McKown's conviction, saying the test is "a reliable indicator of alcohol impairment."
Yet the Supreme Court disagreed in 2007, saying the test differed from others given because the results to the average person were meaningless, while the effect of alcohol on a person's balance was easily understood.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
People v. Joseph Murray
Bond modified in Zion slaying case
February 18, 2010
Because witnesses in the Zion New Year's Day killing have received threatening phone calls related to their potential testimony, Assistant State's Attorney Pat Fix asked the court to modify the bond of the accused killer at his arraignment Wednesday. She told the News-Sun that she could not elaborate on the nature of the threats.
Joseph Murray, 32, was arrested for allegedly killing Curtis Pride due to jealousy over a woman, according to Zion police. Pride was found shot to death Jan. 1 in the 2700 block of Galilee Avenue.
Murray is being held in lieu of a $3 million bond. Judge Daniel Shanes modified his bond conditions so that he is allowed no contact with three of the state's witnesses, which include a 13-year-old eyewitness to the slaying and some of the victim's relatives, Fix said.
Murray pleaded not guilty to three counts against him presented at his arraignment.
He pleaded not guilty to six counts of first-degree murder. He could serve 45 years to life for the first three counts and 20 to 60 years in prison for the other three counts, Shanes said. Because it is a murder charge, Shanes said he would have to serve 100 percent of his sentence if found guilty.
He is also charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and aggravated fleeing a police officer for a Dec. 30, 2009 incident. He is said to have been driving when an officer gave him a visual signal to pull over in Zion. Rather than pull over, he attempted to elude the officer. He was found with a gun and .38-caliber bullets.
Murray is also charged with aggravated battery for allegedly grabbing a hospital worker around the neck on Dec. 24, 2009. Zion police arrested him for this incident, according to court computer records.
He was on parole when he committed the alleged offenses, according to the Illinois Department of Corrections. He was paroled Nov. 3, 2009, for felony escape of a police officer in Lake County from a 2001 offense, according to the DOC Web site. He also served four years in prison for aggravated discharge of a firearm and was taken into custody for that in 1996, according to the DOC Web site.
Murray is represented by his attorney, Louis Pissios.
He is due back in court March 9 and his trial is scheduled for March 22.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
C.D.L. D.U.I.
Lake County D.U.I. Attorney
Illinois drivers with a commercial driver's license (C.D.L.) are held to a higher standard of responsibility than the general public. C.D.L. holders caught with a blood alcohol content of .04 or more are disqualified from driving commercial vehicles for a year. Multiple offenders are disqualified for life. If you have a C.D.L. and face D.U.I. penalties, you need a lawyer dedicated solely to drunk driving defense
I give people in Lake County Illinois, skilled and informed legal representation. Because I focus solely on criminal and D.U.I. / D.W.I. defense, I know the laws and what it takes to reduce the charges and lessen harsh criminal penalties. I have handled several drunk driving cases and I am well versed in the procedures to save your C.D.L..
Call my Waukegan, Illinois office (across the street from the courthouse) at 847-263-0001 for a free consultation.
Supervision Conviction
While it is possible for a C.D.L. driver to get supervision after a D.U.I. arrest, D.U.I. supervision along with other traffic offenses are still listed on the license as conviction whether or not you were driving a commercial vehicle when you received the D.U.I. or the other offense. Saving your C.D.L. becomes a matter of amending the charge and reducing penalties. I am committed to helping my clients retain their driver's license and avoid D.U.I. convictions on their record. I can help save your license and your job.
Do You Really Need a C.D.L.?
I understand that holding a C.D.L. gives one a sense of pride and accomplishment. More importantly, it is the way that many people make a living and provide for their family. Many people want to retain their license for future use, even if they do not currently drive commercial vehicles. However, if you do not currently need a C.D.L. and will not need one in the near future, I encourage you to declassify your license. You can always get your C.D.L. back, if needed. You cannot always regain your driving privileges if caught drinking and driving.
Save Your CDL: Contact an Experienced DUI Defense Attorney
If you have a commercial driver's license and have been charged with D.U.I., please contact me me.
Illinois drivers with a commercial driver's license (C.D.L.) are held to a higher standard of responsibility than the general public. C.D.L. holders caught with a blood alcohol content of .04 or more are disqualified from driving commercial vehicles for a year. Multiple offenders are disqualified for life. If you have a C.D.L. and face D.U.I. penalties, you need a lawyer dedicated solely to drunk driving defense
I give people in Lake County Illinois, skilled and informed legal representation. Because I focus solely on criminal and D.U.I. / D.W.I. defense, I know the laws and what it takes to reduce the charges and lessen harsh criminal penalties. I have handled several drunk driving cases and I am well versed in the procedures to save your C.D.L..
Call my Waukegan, Illinois office (across the street from the courthouse) at 847-263-0001 for a free consultation.
Supervision Conviction
While it is possible for a C.D.L. driver to get supervision after a D.U.I. arrest, D.U.I. supervision along with other traffic offenses are still listed on the license as conviction whether or not you were driving a commercial vehicle when you received the D.U.I. or the other offense. Saving your C.D.L. becomes a matter of amending the charge and reducing penalties. I am committed to helping my clients retain their driver's license and avoid D.U.I. convictions on their record. I can help save your license and your job.
Do You Really Need a C.D.L.?
I understand that holding a C.D.L. gives one a sense of pride and accomplishment. More importantly, it is the way that many people make a living and provide for their family. Many people want to retain their license for future use, even if they do not currently drive commercial vehicles. However, if you do not currently need a C.D.L. and will not need one in the near future, I encourage you to declassify your license. You can always get your C.D.L. back, if needed. You cannot always regain your driving privileges if caught drinking and driving.
Save Your CDL: Contact an Experienced DUI Defense Attorney
If you have a commercial driver's license and have been charged with D.U.I., please contact me me.
Monday, February 8, 2010
People v. Joseph Murray, first degree murder
I have been retained to represent defendant Joseph Murray in People v. Joseph Murray 10 CF 88 and 10 CF 56. Joseph is charged, at least at this point, with two counts of first degree murder and aggravated domestic battery. I am working with Faya Kacos of FKS Investigations as our investigator in this case and we already have already had some very interesting interviews with witnesses. The arraignment is set for February 11, 2009 here in Waukegan in the Lake County Circuit Courthouse. More to come, as is allowable, in the future.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Speedy Trial Act - Illinois
Ill App - Criminal - Speedy Trial Act / Objections
People v. Hampton, No. 2-08-0368 (2d Dist. Sept. 18, 2009, corrected Sept. 28, 2009) O'MALLEY (Kane Co.) Reversed and remanded.
Speedy Trial Act is not to be used as a sword to avoid threat of conviction; even where defense counsel made general objection to State's motion for trial continuance, defense counsel should have raised specific objection to proposed trial date beyond 120-day deadline. Defense counsel proposed such date, although trial court had offered to move trial date earlier. Time calculations for Speedy Trial Act commence on date a defendant is taken into custody, not on date request for speedy trial is made or on date objection to continuance is made.
People v. Hampton, No. 2-08-0368 (2d Dist. Sept. 18, 2009, corrected Sept. 28, 2009) O'MALLEY (Kane Co.) Reversed and remanded.
Speedy Trial Act is not to be used as a sword to avoid threat of conviction; even where defense counsel made general objection to State's motion for trial continuance, defense counsel should have raised specific objection to proposed trial date beyond 120-day deadline. Defense counsel proposed such date, although trial court had offered to move trial date earlier. Time calculations for Speedy Trial Act commence on date a defendant is taken into custody, not on date request for speedy trial is made or on date objection to continuance is made.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Ill Criminal - DUI / Jury Demand
Ill App - Criminal - DUI / Jury Demand
People v. Ziobro , Nos. 3-08-0770, 3-08-0771, 3-08-0793, 3-09-0071, 3-09-0072, Cons. (3d Dist. Jan. 13, 2010) LYTTON (Will Co.) Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Defendants were given first appearance dates on traffic citations beyond prescribed period of Rule 504, and filed motions to dismiss at their first appearance dates. Those defendants who had timely filed jury trial demand 10 days prior to first appearance date, and announced "ready for trial" at first appearance, were entitled to dismissal with prejudice of their DUI citations, as prosecutor was not ready for trial at first appearance. One defendant, whose charge did not include jail time, who had not filed jury demand, and who did not announce ready for trial at first appearance, was not entitled to dismissal with prejudice.
People v. Ziobro , Nos. 3-08-0770, 3-08-0771, 3-08-0793, 3-09-0071, 3-09-0072, Cons. (3d Dist. Jan. 13, 2010) LYTTON (Will Co.) Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Defendants were given first appearance dates on traffic citations beyond prescribed period of Rule 504, and filed motions to dismiss at their first appearance dates. Those defendants who had timely filed jury trial demand 10 days prior to first appearance date, and announced "ready for trial" at first appearance, were entitled to dismissal with prejudice of their DUI citations, as prosecutor was not ready for trial at first appearance. One defendant, whose charge did not include jail time, who had not filed jury demand, and who did not announce ready for trial at first appearance, was not entitled to dismissal with prejudice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)