Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share What Is An Appropriate Remedy After A DUI Discovery Violation?
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
What Is An Appropriate Remedy After A DUI Discovery Violation?
See People v. Olson, 2015 IL App (2d) 140267 (June). Episode 077 (Duration 17:22)
Does every DUI discovery violation result in suppression of evidence? When is it appropriate for a trial judge to exclude field sobriety tests?
Subscribe: Apple | Google | Spotify | Android | RSS | Direct Download
APPLE PODCASTS GOOGLE PODCASTS
SPOTIFY ANDROID RSS
DIRECT DOWNLOAD
The sky has been declared to be falling because of a case where the appellate court reversed the trial court’s suppression of field sobriety tests.
What Happened?
As with many DUI cases, this one began with a traffic stop by a state trooper.
Eventually, the trooper has the driver perform field sobriety tests. The squad car was equipped with a video camera. Although the camera was actually rolling and recording, the Defendant’s performance on the field tests was not captured.
The squad was not positioned so that the officer and Defendant were within the field of view! The officer explained that the location was tricky, and it was just safer to do the tests off camera.
The Law
It turns out, there is this State Police law that says that troopers:
“…shall record activities outside a patrol vehicle whenever (i) an officer assigned a patrol vehicle is conducting an enforcement stop; (ii) patrol vehicle emergency lights are activated or would otherwise be activated if not for the need to conceal the presence of law enforcement; or (iii) an officer reasonably believes recording may assist with prosecution, enhance safety, or for any other lawful purpose…” 20 ILCS 2610/30(c).
Defense Argument
The defense attorney argued at the trial level that a “discovery violation” has occurred because the trooper had an obligation under the law to record the field tests, yet he failed to do it.
This in turn deprived the defendant of a fair trial because a video of defendant’s performance on the tests would have clearly revealed he was not inebriated.
A Law Without a Remedy
The appellate court looked at the statute mentioned above.
The court noted that the statute did not describe the consequences for non-compliance. In other words, the statute does not say what should happen in cases where the state police do not record a traffic stop.
This is very important.
View all episodes
By Police NuggetsSee People v. Olson, 2015 IL App (2d) 140267 (June). Episode 077 (Duration 17:22)
Does every DUI discovery violation result in suppression of evidence? When is it appropriate for a trial judge to exclude field sobriety tests?
Subscribe: Apple | Google | Spotify | Android | RSS | Direct Download
APPLE PODCASTS GOOGLE PODCASTS
SPOTIFY ANDROID RSS
DIRECT DOWNLOAD
The sky has been declared to be falling because of a case where the appellate court reversed the trial court’s suppression of field sobriety tests.
What Happened?
As with many DUI cases, this one began with a traffic stop by a state trooper.
Eventually, the trooper has the driver perform field sobriety tests. The squad car was equipped with a video camera. Although the camera was actually rolling and recording, the Defendant’s performance on the field tests was not captured.
The squad was not positioned so that the officer and Defendant were within the field of view! The officer explained that the location was tricky, and it was just safer to do the tests off camera.
The Law
It turns out, there is this State Police law that says that troopers:
“…shall record activities outside a patrol vehicle whenever (i) an officer assigned a patrol vehicle is conducting an enforcement stop; (ii) patrol vehicle emergency lights are activated or would otherwise be activated if not for the need to conceal the presence of law enforcement; or (iii) an officer reasonably believes recording may assist with prosecution, enhance safety, or for any other lawful purpose…” 20 ILCS 2610/30(c).
Defense Argument
The defense attorney argued at the trial level that a “discovery violation” has occurred because the trooper had an obligation under the law to record the field tests, yet he failed to do it.
This in turn deprived the defendant of a fair trial because a video of defendant’s performance on the tests would have clearly revealed he was not inebriated.
A Law Without a Remedy
The appellate court looked at the statute mentioned above.
The court noted that the statute did not describe the consequences for non-compliance. In other words, the statute does not say what should happen in cases where the state police do not record a traffic stop.
This is very important.