No. 3--00--0766

_________________________________________________________________

							IN THE

							APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

							THIRD DISTRICT

							A.D., 2001 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE 			)	Appeal from the Circuit Court

OF ILLINOIS,					)	of the 10th Judicial Circuit,

							)	Putnam County, Illinois

	Plaintiff-Appellee,			)	

							)

	v.						)	Nos. 2000--DT--22 &

	)	2000--TR--827

							)	

JASON WYZGOWSKI,	)	Honorable                      

	 ) 	Stuart Borden

	Defendant-Appellant.		)	Judge, Presiding

_________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGWEE DELIdelivered 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the defendant claims that his suspension should not have been rescinded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.

	HOLDRIDGE, J., with HOMER, P.J., and LYTTON, J., concur....ring.