§ 4.5 Compliance with Standards

• Library: Illinois DUI and Traffic-Related Decisions (2016 Ed.)

§ 4.5 Compliance with Standards

People v. Neville, 151 Ill. App. 3d 679, 503 N.E.2d 387, 104 Ill. Dec. 830 (3d Dist. 1987). It is not required that person administering the test be the one who observed defendant for 20 minutes. The rule requires aggregate observation either by the arresting or testing officer.

People v. Orth, 124 Ill. 2d 326, 530 N.E.2d 210, 125 Ill. Dec. 182 (1988). See People v. Black, 84 Ill. App. 3d 1050, 406 N.E.2d 23, 40 Ill. Dec. 322 (1980); People v. Hester, 88 Ill. App. 3d 391, 410 N.E.2d 638, 43 Ill. Dec. 638 (1980); see also People v. Hamilton, 118 Ill. 2d 153, 514 N.E.2d 965, 113 Ill. Dec. 5 (1987). Reports are not sufficient to establish the foundational evidence needed to admit the results of blood, breath, or urine tests as required under 11.501.2.

In re Summary Suspension of Driver's License of Ramos, 155 Ill. App. 3d 374, 508 N.E.2d 484, 108 Ill. Dec. 323 (4th Dist. 1987). The arresting officer observed defendant for 20 minutes prior to attempting to have defendant take a breath test. The officer discovered he had failed to reset the machine for a breath sample. Another six minutes was required to reset the machine. Since defendant did not drink, smoke, vomit, or take anything out of his mouth, and was observed periodically, substantial compliance was shown with the standards promulgated by the Department of Public Health.

People v. Sanders, 155 Ill. App. 3d 759, 508 N.E.2d 497, 108 Ill. Dec. 336 (2d Dist. 1987). When evidence produced by defendant revealed a light on the breathalyzer machine had reappeared after he had blown into the machine and thus malfunctioned, the trial court rescinded the statutory summary suspension. The appellate court reversed, stating defendant had failed in his burden of proof of establishing a prima facie case that the machine had malfunctioned. The court found that, generally, the light should go out when a sufficient sample is obtained. However, the light returning did not exclude the possibility that its coming back was consistent in normal operations.

People v. Torres, 160 Ill. App. 3d 643, 513 N.E.2d 1142, 112 Ill. Dec. 533 (2d Dist. 1987). Defendant claimed the breath test results were erroneously given because the State failed to establish the operator's qualifications. The State is under no obligation to produce evidence of the operator's certification absent defendant's prima facie showing the officer was unqualified.

People v. Zator, 209 Ill. App. 3d 322, 568 N.E.2d 162, 154...