2018 IL App (3d) 170436 Opinion filed December 31, 2018 _____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT 2018 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Will County, Illinois, ) v. ) Appeal No. 3-17-0436 ) Circuit No. 17-DT-10 ) JOHN V. NORRIS, ) Honorable ) Rick A. Mason, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. _____________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Holdridge and Wright concurred in the judgment and opinion. _____________________________________________________________________________ OPINION ¶1 Defendant, John V. Norris, appeals following the denial of his petition to rescind his statutory summary suspension. He raises five arguments on appeal, which we address in turn. ¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND ¶3 The State charged defendant with driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2016)) via complaint dated January 3, 2017. Based on defendant’s refusal to complete postarrest testing, his driver’s license was subject to a 12-month statutory summary suspension. Defendant, who represented himself throughout the entirety of the proceedings below, subsequently filed a petition to rescind the suspension on the grounds that (1) the arresting officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and (2) he had not been warned that refusal to submit to testing would result in the suspension of his driver’s license. ¶4 Following a number of agreed continuances, defendant’s petition to rescind was stricken for want of prosecution on March 15, 2017, when he failed to appear in court. On April 4, 2017, defendant filed a motion to reinstate his petition, averring that he had been sick on the previous court date and that officials at Will County Adult Detention Facility had failed to inform the court of that fact. On April 13, 2017, the court reinstated defendant’s petition, commenting: “We’ll show the motion is reinstated, and the new 30 days starts to run from today.” The court scheduled the hearing for May 1. ¶5 Defendant subsequently filed a “Motion to Suppress Statements (Miranda Warning).” In the motion, defendant asserted that statements he made in the course of his traffic stop should be suppressed on the grounds that the arresting officer never read a Miranda warning. In the motion, defendant did not identify with any specificity the statements he sought to have suppressed. ¶6 On April 26, the State filed a motion to continue the hearing on defendant’s petition because the arresting officer would be unavailable on May 1. The court granted the State’s motion over defendant’s objection and rescheduled the hearing on the petition to rescind for May 15. ¶7 A combined hearing on defendant’s petition to rescind and his motion to suppress commenced on May 15, 2017. Defendant’s first witness was the arresting officer, Robert Mau, of the Joliet Police Department. After a series of preliminary questions, an attempt was made to play the video recording of the traffic stop from Mau’s squad car. The record reflects, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals