How often do we see this in the report of a traffic fatality:
Coile said Black was also issued tickets for driving under suspension, operating an uninsured motor vehicle and failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident.
Usually unreported, but generally understood:
All those are petty traffic offenses.
It is a painful pattern to watch. Guy gets arrested for DUI, and is hammered with that draconian punishment of having his driving priviledges suspended. Yeah, big deal. The punishment for driving without a license is a PETTY TRAFFIC OFFENSE. So he just keeps driving. And, often, repeats the drinking and driving that got him in trouble in the first place. The guy that killed the Elsworthy girls didn't have a valid license, as I recall.
This needs to be tightened up - seriously tightened up. If you are caught driving on a suspended license, I think some jail time is in order. That's a bit gentler than taking the car - my other idea. These people have a blatant disregard for the law - let's get them off the road one way or the other.
The guy that killed the Elsworthy girls didn't have a valid license, as I recall.
He did not. The piece of garbage that is responsible for the deaths of Jen and Jackie Esworthy had a 13 year history of DUI/DWI when the accident occurred (11 years ago). I think he ended up doing something like 8 years in prison. He has since been re-arrested for DUI, and driving on a revoked license, and is currently in jail where he can't kill anyone else.
Personally, I would be a fan for cruel and unusual punishments for people such as this. It seems the traditional punishments are not effective.
I'm pretty passionate about this issue. I was friends with Jen and Jackie, and remember getting the phone call that they had died like it was yesterday.
Sometimes your driving license can be suspended for petty officences like unpaid parking tickets or failure to pay a speeding ticket on time. These are examples that while they SHOULD BE PUNISHED a small fine is more in order than jail time. (ie less than $150) I agree if your license is suspened for DUI and you are caught driving jail time may be in appropriate, especially when there is an accident. A blanket mandate of jail for everyone driving with a suspended license is not needed nor appropriate. The Secratary of State does a bad job of notifiying people when there license is suspended already, and it is likely a lot of drivers don't know they have a suspened license until they go to get and address change or get it renewed, as happened to me. I paid a fine around 70 bucks and that was it. I believe my licence was suspended for not paying a ticket fully for running a stoplight. I owed like 5 dollars, and didn't realize it. I don't believe jail would have been appropriate for me. I drove to the courthouse, iillegal, paid the fine, drove back to the dmv, illegal, paid a fine to the SOS, and my license was restored.
I agree if your license is suspened for DUI and you are caught driving jail time may be in appropriate, especially when there is an accident. A blanket mandate of jail for everyone driving with a suspended license is not needed nor appropriate.
I agree.
Although there is a part of me that would like to see people jailed for driving on a suspended license that was caused by the failure to pay, say, 50 parking tickets :-O
A lot of people driving on suspended licenses could care less if they are under suspension or revocation, There are many times when the defendant does not show up for their hearing or their sentencing, they officially find out they are suspended when pulled over for any number of reasons. I have read that right now their are over 10000 people driving under suspension in the State of Illinois. RSW mentioned above these people are likely to repeat drinking and driving and get stopped and run Thur the computer and come up wanted. Suspended for any reason is a serious crime and should be treated like one.
It would help too if punishments were progressive rather than regressive. A $50 ticket might be a deterrent for most making $20,000 a year, but not for many making $1.5 million a year.
Maybe some of the local Attorneys who have made millions of $$ defending these people could offer some comments on the subject, Mr. Beckett or Mr. Bruno are two that come to mind in the field of DUI, These two are experts in keeping people out of jail.
I remember reading in the newspaper an article about the SOS sending notices to people that got DUIs from like 15 years ago getting notices that their licences were suspened for those past offenses. I think anon 4:26 made a good point about the SOS office not notifying people their driving privileges are revoked. If that office worked at just faster than a snails pace maybe we could have better enforcement of current laws.
Go Whitesox!!!
I remember reading in the newspaper an article about the SOS sending notices to people that got DUIs from like 15 years ago getting notices that their licences were suspened for those past offenses. I think anon 4:26 made a good point about the SOS office not notifying people their driving privileges are revoked. If that office worked at just faster than a snails pace maybe we could have better enforcement of current laws.
Wayne, I don't think the newspaper article made it clear whether the delays were caused by our circuit clerk's office or the Secretary of State.
The original NG article is wrong. Driving with a suspended license is NOT a petty offense. It is a class A misdemeanor just like DUI, and carries with it up to one year in jail. DUS while DUI has mandatory minimum jail sentences. If this driver beats the DUI rap he can expect to get the maximum one year sentence on his DUS.
If convicted of Agg DUI he'll catch close to the 28 year maximum and has to serve 85% of that.
Driving without insurance is also not a petty offense. It is in the unusual category of "business offense", punishable by up to a $2,000 fine.
I would like to be clear that I am talking about the SOS office, not the local DMV. I'm sorry if I offened anyone in that office. I have only recieved fast and professional service from the facillity on West Bradley ave. That alot more than what I can say about my experiences outside of Champaign including one incident when an employee at a DMV in Peoria insisted that Champaign was spelled Champagne.
Go Whitesox!!!
There are different type of suspensions... if you dont pay a fine that is called a 625-5--6-303a9 suspension. The punishment is far different than if your suspended for a DUI or revolked for a reckless homicide. It is a sad state of affairs when people continue to drive even without drivers licenses.... jail does not appear to be a deterrent. If I recall several years ago. the population of the jail was made of up of DUS and DUR and DUI drivers... people who dont listen to their attorneys or the judges and continue to drive. Several weeks ago there was a DUI fatal accident on Rte 136 Eastt of Gifford ( the elderly driver whose vehicle was rear ended, died in a nursing home after the accident) the DUI driver had his charges upgraded to Reckless Homicide and then was released by the Judge on a ROR.. Who knows if that guy is driving today... there is an elderly gentleman who is not and his family is grieving over his loss. There is an old adage about Champaign County.. one can get more time in jail for a DUR/DUI than they would from a murder. I doubt that is true today, but it does appear that people who flaunt the law need to be held accountable for their actions and if that means longer jail sentences, then so be it.
Another way that repeat DUI offenders get away with continuing to drive is by refusing breathalyzer or field sobriety tests when pulled over, and taking the automatic 6 -month suspension for doing so in order to avoid the risk of getting another DUI conviction. Refusing the tests deprives police and prosecutors of the most critical evidence they need to prove someone was driving drunk.
Some jurisdictions have tried 'no refusal' weekends where they keep a judge on call to issue warrants for blood tests on anyone who refuses to blow. But few if any police officers are going to enforce such a warrant by strapping down an enraged drunk and sticking a needle in him against his will. There's also 4th and 5th Amendment issues regarding self-incrimination and search and seizure involved.
This loophole is apparently somewhat common knowledge among repeat DUI offenders, otherwise the 'no refusal' approach wouldn't be necessary. Perhaps the suspension for refusing sobriety tests needs to be lengthened to 12 months or more.
On July 15th, 2008 at 08:02 PM, Bookworm (not verified) said:
Another way that repeat DUI offenders get away with continuing to drive is by refusing breathalyzer or field sobriety tests when pulled over, and taking the automatic 6 -month suspension for doing so in order to avoid the risk of getting another DUI conviction. Refusing the tests deprives police and prosecutors of the most critical evidence they need to prove someone was driving drunk.
DUI convictions have been made without blood or breath tests. Mark Medlyn, Retired CPD Officer could probably explain this in more detail, Witness testimony, video of the traffic stop showing the defendant falling down slurred speech etc. Illinois has implied consent for drawing blood if they are treated at a hospital emergency room even if the driver is unconscious. Champaign County had about 800 DUI arrests in 2007, just looking at the Circuit Clerks web site and looking at the records I see a lot of these as plea agreements sometimes to lesser charges or dismissed. Could somebody explain why this charge would be dismissed?? I have talked to police officers, City and State and they are 99% sure someone is DUI before the person is taken to the County jail or hospital for testing. If this was not the case we would hear of a lot of false arrest cases, I'm not aware of any in Champaign County.
11-501a2 states that a person is under if the influence if any amount of alcohol that you drink causes you to be impaired. 11-501a1 is where you have a breath test. Often times the S/A office will drop one of the two DUI charges if the person took a breath test. The results are the same.. the person gets charged and convicted of DUI. The penalties are the same if they are convicted of a1 or a2 in terms of jail or license revocation. Officers will always (or should) charge both a1 and a2 when they get a bac back from the motorist. Can we force blood from people are there consitutional issues? In 1964 the US Supreme Court ruled that officers dont need a search warrant for blood since a bac goes down rather quickly. In Illinois its rather a new experience to get these warrants to draw blood. In my time at CPD in which people refused to take a blood test, but that one that I wanted to get ( an accident for example) I never had a problem with the motorist accepting what we were about to do while at the same time being adament about refusing to take the test. In Champaign County, if you have a bac over .15 or so, there is no chance that you will get supervison, even if your in your 50's and this is your first traffic ticket of any type. The courts have been very intolerant of the intoxicated motorist over the years. Other counties adjacent to Champaign County are not so strict with regards to enforcement of the DUI statutes.
Obviously this issue is quite complicated - thanks for all the legal info folks.
Bookworm wrote:
Well, yeah, assuming that there would be some teeth in the punishment for driving on that suspended license.
Gregg,
Misdemeanor DUIs are often dismissed when there are aggravating circumstances and the SA's office then files a felony DUI charge.
Thank You Prairie Bike for the information.
Greg
Driving on a suspended license frequently is the slippery slope a young person slides down en route to more complex and serious trouble with the law. Loss of employment is often a secondary punishment for accumulated traffic offenses. I'm not talking about DUI, a twenty year old loses his or her license for two tickets, and they need not be serious. The revocation comes from SOS without notice, and is effective immediately. "The appeal process takes weeks, but the suspension begins today," as one SOS functionary gleefully told me.
Be careful what you wish for.
When your DUS ticket is because you drove during a suspension which was imposed for either failing to take a breath test or for blowing a test over the limit, there is a mandatory minimum 10 days in jail and like any other DUS, a possibility of up to one year in jail.
Of course, do not confuse the Statutory Summary Suspension of either 90 days or 180 days with the revocation which occurs if convicted of DUI. They are separate.
Most other counties do not take these offenses as seriously as Champaign County. We deal with DUI and DUS and DUR more harshly than almost any other county in Illinois.
Barrister - that is good to hear, and I guess makes my whole post invalid. (But I do feel better knowing these folks can go to jail if discovered for any reason.)
Can you tell me how long the law has been this way?
I'm going to tick off a lot of people here, and probably get kicked off the board--
but this is something that has stuck in my mind for years, and was brought up at the start of this thread--
It's about the Esworthy accident.
If all will recall, when this happened, the parents were in the front seat, wearing their seatbelts, and while they were injured, they lived.
The girls (who were in their early twenties) were in the backseat, not wearing safety belts, and they were ejected from the car and died.
I'm not saying the guy who caused the accident doesn't deserve all the legal problems he got. HE DID.
But the Esworthy girls would probably still be alive if they had been wearing their seatbelts.
I think it would be better for the memory of the girls if their parents were to start a campaign to make wearing seatbelts mandatory for ALL passengers in a vehicle.
But I realize I'm just blaming the victims (the parents)...
and Gordy's gonna smack me upside the head and yell "Nanny Stater!!"...
so, here goes...
(looking around for incoming objects)
"Gordy's gonna smack me upside the head and yell "Nanny Stater!!"..."
Nah.
one who hopes t...
Looking at this unemotional, I am sure this might be a factor. However, the legal obligation, and the topic is a legal question, (suspended license), is on the individual who chose to drive intoxicated without a license. Adult backseat passengers have no legal obligation to wear a seatbelt, but do have an expectation that a drunk suspended driver should not be plowing into them. That being said, I believe in seatbelts for this very reason. BTW, the same could be said about a helmet law for motorcycles. However, even w/o the helmet, the criminal responsiblity belongs to the drunk suspended driver.
Hey, I'm all in favor of helmet laws.
My mom and several aunts are nurses/health care workers, and I've heard plenty of stories about bad motorcycle accidents and "organ donors".
I'm looking into getting a scooter because of gas prices, and you better believe I'm already checking out helmets, too.
And yes, we should all be able to drive down the street with the expectation that anyone who hits us is doing it for some other reason than being drunk or stoned. The criminal responsibility does belong on the individual who chooses to operate his/her vehicle while impaired, whether they have a valid or suspended license.
But stronger laws against impaired driving probably aren't going to prevent an Esworthy-type incident again.
Seatbelt usage by backseat passengers would, though.
We should do away with seat belt law, continue not to have a helmet law, and make sure with stiffer penalties and more activity in the enforcement of the mandatory insurance law. Why you ask, this lets individuals have the freedom and liberty in our capitalistic society that was. granted to us by our founding fatners. But for example if a motorcycle rider decides to not wear a helmet and gets killed because of it, the other driver should bear no finacial responsibility except for replacing the motorcycle if the driver was at fought. In other words let people make whatever smart or dumb decision for themselves and take the resposibility and liability for those decisions.
I'm a little late to this thread, but I can add something to what barrister said. Illinois law treats driving while suspended or revoked differently depending on the reason for the suspension or revocation. Where the suspension/revocation is for DUI or for refusing a breath test, the penalties are much more severe. A first offense is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 364 days in jail. The minimum sentence is 10 days jail or 240 hours public service.
A second offense is a Class 4 felony. Max 1-3 DOC, min 30 days or 300 hours.
Third offense, min 30 days.
Fourth offense, min 180 days.
After that, the minimums and classifications don't increase until the 10th offense, but you get the idea.
so do judges tend to lean toward the minimum or maximum sentence?
That depends on the judge. There also are different charges for whether there is an accident and someone is injured or killed and whether it's considered a homicide or not. I don't know what the charges are called though someone will have to fill us in.
On July 22nd, 2008 at 07:57 AM, Christopher Kanis -- ASA Champaign (not verified) said:
The minimum sentence is 10 days jail or 240 hours public service.
A second offense is a Class 4 felony. Max 1-3 DOC, min 30 days or 300 hours.
Third offense, min 30 days.
Fourth offense, min 180 days.
After that, the minimums and classifications don't increase until the 10th offense, but you get the idea.
The 10th offense??? How many cases has Champaign County had that involve someone arrested for 10 DUI's, Earlier in this thread I asked why DUI is some times dismissed, I was told that some of the cases are refiled to more serious felony DUI, I have seen cases on the Circuit Clerks page where a case is dismissed and no further charge was made, Could you explain why a case would be dismissed and no further action by the State is taken?
So ... like a week ago I came home and popped open a Goose Island (I like the 412 in summer), managed two swigs before the wife asked me to run to Walgreens to pick up a prescription. I get in the truck and start the engine when the wife yells out the door, "You takin' that beer with you?" I had completely forgotten that I had the beer in my hand and had actually plopped it in the cupholder before starting the engine. I wasn't drunk, but I realized that I would have broken the law if I had driven to Walgreens with an open beer in the car, or if I had taken a swig while driving.
Everyone here knows that I am not much of a conservative, and I don't do much complaining about the "nanny state", but it struck me as a little oppressive that a perfectly sober driver can't have an open beer in the car while running an errand.
Don't get me wrong - I understand the law and I suppose it is better to just ban all such activity - but I was just struck at what an infringement on my basic lifestyle this law is.
Which brings me to my question: if I am sipping a beer and my kid wants to walk down to the park, can I take my beer with me? I mean, can I walk down the sidewalk with a beer in my hand, or is that a ticket waiting to happen?
Strange times, I guess.
I'm for the 0 BAC law personally--but I can't fathom the open container in a public thoroughfare laws.
No