ROMINGER LEGAL
Illinois Court Cases and Opinions - Illinois Legal Research
Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS
NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE
This opinion or court case was taken from the Illinois Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH
COURT REPORTERS
PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS
PROCESS SERVERS
DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS
EXPERT WITNESSES

 

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

 
Web Rominger Legal

Legal News - Legal Headlines

 

July 13, 2001

No. 3--00--0766


IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 2001

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,

         Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.


JASON WYZGOWSKI,

        Defendant-Appellant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appeal from the Circuit Court
of the 10th Judicial Circuit,
Putnam County, Illinois


Nos. 2000--DT--22 &
2000--TR--827

Honorable
Stuart Borden
Judge, Presiding

 

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the opinion of the court:



The defendant, Jason Wyzgowski, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Putnam County denying his petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges. On appeal, the defendant claims that his suspension should have been rescinded because the law enforcement sworn report was defective and was not cured by amendment. We affirm.

FACTS

On July 6, 2000, at 11:26 p.m. the defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (625 ILCS 5/11--501 (West 2000)). At 12:22 a.m. on July 7, the officer warned the defendant about the consequences of submitting to a blood, breath, or urine chemical test. At 12:51 a.m. the defendant failed the breathalyzer test. He was immediately served notice of the summary suspension of his driving privileges and provided a copy of the law enforcement sworn report. The report, however, incorrectly states the date of arrest as July 7, 2000, at 11:26 p.m. The test date was properly recorded.

The defendant subsequently received confirmation from the Secretary of State of the statutory summary suspension. The letter informed the defendant that his driving privileges would be revoked for 12 months, beginning on August 22, 2000.

On August 24, 2000, the defendant petitioned the court to rescind his statutory summary suspension based on the scrivener's error in the report. A hearing was set for August 31. On the day of the hearing, the State filed an amended sworn report changing the date of the defendant's arrest to July 6, 2000, at 11:26 p.m. The amended report was signed by the arresting officer. No one testified at the hearing. After considering arguments by both sides, the trial court concluded that the erroneous arrest date was not fatal to the sworn report and denied the petition to rescind. The defendant now appeals.

ANALYSIS

The defendant argues that the scrivener's error in the sworn report warrants rescission of the statutory summary suspension. He further claims that amended sworn report was untimely and should not have been allowed to cure the defect in the initial report.

A driver who has been notified of the statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges may file a petition to rescind the suspension based on certain defects in the officer's sworn report. People v. Lent, 276 Ill. App. 3d 80, 657 N.E.2d 732 (1995). In general, a scrivener's error in the sworn report which does not affect the issuance of the statutory summary suspension of the defendant's driver's license is not fatal. Lent, 276 Ill. App. 3d 80, 657 N.E.2d 732 (arresting officer's failure to personally serve defendant with charges as indicated on the sworn report was not fatal to issuance of suspension); People v. Steder, 268 Ill. App. 3d 44, 642 N.E.2d 1360 (1994) (failure to sign driver's license receipts is merely a formal defect and did not affect validity of sworn report). Deficiencies in the report need not be corrected before the Secretary of State enters a statutory summary suspension. People v. Badoud, 122 Ill. 2d 50, 521 N.E.2d 884 (1988). An officer's sworn report may be amended at the hearing on the petition to rescind the suspension. Badoud, 122 Ill. 2d 50, 521 N.E.2d 884; cf. People v. Cooper, 174 Ill. App. 3d 500, 528 N.E.2d 1011 (1988).

Section 11--501.1(h) of the Vehicle Code provides:

"Upon receipt of the sworn report from the law enforcement officer, the Secretary of State shall confirm the statutory summary suspension by mailing a notice of the effective date of the suspension to the person and the court of venue. However, should the sworn report be defective by not containing sufficient information or be completed in error, the confirmation of the statutory summary suspension shall not be mailed to the person or entered to the record; instead, the sworn report shall be forwarded to the court of venue with a copy returned to the issuing agency identifying any defect." 625 ILCS 5/11--501.1(h) (West 2000).

Pursuant to section 11--501.1(g), the Secretary of State is directed to issue a summary suspension on the 46th day following the date the notice of the statutory summary suspension was served. 625 ILCS 5/11--501.1(g) (West 2000).

The defendant claims that since his sworn report was defective, the summary suspension of his license should not have been confirmed by the Secretary of State. Section 11--501.1(h) defines a defective report as one that does not contain sufficient information from which to issue a suspension or one that was completed in error. 625 ILCS 11--501.1(h) (West 2000). Aside from the date of arrest, the report in the instant case correctly identified the breathalyzer testing date as July 7, 2000. It also accurately stated that the defendant was provided notice of the statutory summary suspension immediately after he failed the test on July 7. Thus, the report contained sufficient information to permit the Secretary of State to calculate the effective date of the suspension. We find that the scrivener's error in the sworn report was merely a formal defect and did not affect the validity of the report. Moreover, the defect did not deprive the defendant of any substantial right because he received proper notice of the summary suspension and the dates upon which the suspension was based were correctly recorded in the original sworn report.

The defendant's argument that the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend the report also fails. In Badoud, 122 Ill. 2d 50, 521 N.E.2d 884, the arresting officer failed to swear to the report. The defendant challenged the scrivener's error, claiming that the statute required that the report be sworn to when the Secretary of State receives it and enters the suspension. The supreme court concluded that the summary suspension statute should be construed liberally to accomplish the purpose of fostering highway safety. Consequently, it determined that the officer should be allowed to correct the error by swearing under oath that the report is true during the hearing on the petition to rescind. The fact that the suspension had been entered prior to the hearing did not alter the court's determination. Badoud, 122 Ill. 2d 50, 521 N.E.2d 884.

In the instant case, we recognize that the State did not seek to amend the sworn report until the error was raised in the defendant's petition to rescind. However, based on Badoud, we see nothing inappropriate in the trial court's decision to allow the State to amend the report at the hearing.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Putnam County is affirmed.

Affirmed.

HOMER, P.J., and LYTTON, J., concur.

 

Ask a Lawyer

 

 

FREE CASE REVIEW BY A LOCAL LAWYER!
|
|
\/

Personal Injury Law
Accidents
Dog Bite
Legal Malpractice
Medical Malpractice
Other Professional Malpractice
Libel & Slander
Product Liability
Slip & Fall
Torts
Workplace Injury
Wrongful Death
Auto Accidents
Motorcycle Accidents
Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Business/Corporate Law
Business Formation
Business Planning
Franchising
Tax Planning
Traffic/Transportation Law
Moving Violations
Routine Infractions
Lemon Law
Manufacturer Defects
Securities Law
Securities Litigation
Shareholder Disputes
Insider Trading
Foreign Investment
Wills & Estates

Wills

Trusts
Estate Planning
Family Law
Adoption
Child Abuse
Child Custody
Child Support
Divorce - Contested
Divorce - Uncontested
Juvenile Criminal Law
Premarital Agreements
Spousal Support
Labor/Employment Law
Wrongful Termination
Sexual Harassment
Age Discrimination
Workers Compensation
Real Estate/Property Law
Condemnation / Eminent Domain
Broker Litigation
Title Litigation
Landlord/Tenant
Buying/Selling/Leasing
Foreclosures
Residential Real Estate Litigation
Commercial Real Estate Litigation
Construction Litigation
Banking/Finance Law
Debtor/Creditor
Consumer Protection
Venture Capital
Constitutional Law
Discrimination
Police Misconduct
Sexual Harassment
Privacy Rights
Criminal Law
DUI / DWI / DOI
Assault & Battery
White Collar Crimes
Sex Crimes
Homocide Defense
Civil Law
Insurance Bad Faith
Civil Rights
Contracts
Estate Planning, Wills & Trusts
Litigation/Trials
Social Security
Worker's Compensation
Probate, Will & Trusts
Intellectual Property
Patents
Trademarks
Copyrights
Tax Law
IRS Disputes
Filing/Compliance
Tax Planning
Tax Power of Attorney
Health Care Law
Disability
Elder Law
Government/Specialty Law
Immigration
Education
Trade Law
Agricultural/Environmental
IRS Issues

 


Google
Search Rominger Legal


 


LEGAL HELP FORUM - Potential Client ? Post your question.
LEGAL HELP FORUM - Attorney? Answer Questions, Maybe get hired!

NOW - CASE LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try it for FREE


 


Get Legal News
Enter your Email


Preview

We now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!

ADD A SEARCH ENGINE TO YOUR PAGE!!!

TELL A FRIEND ABOUT ROMINGER LEGAL

Ask Your Legal Question Now.

Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board

Find An Attorney

TERMS OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES

Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2010.

A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.