Source: https://www.dui-illinois-attorney.com/Articles/Illinois-DUI-Law-Brief-on-Shifting-Burden-in-Summary-Suspension-Hearings.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:03:27+00:00

Document:
WHEN A DEFENDANT MAKES A PRIMA FACIE CASE THAT THE TEST RESULT IS EITHER UNRELIABLE, OR NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS, THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE STATE TO LAY A FOUNDATION AND ADMIT THE BREATH RESULTS. IF THEY FAIL TO DO SO, THE COURT MUST GRANT THE PETITION TO RESCIND. SINCE THE STATE NEITHER ADMITTED THE RESULTS NOR LAID A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR ADMITTING THE LOGBOOK ENTRIES, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION TO RESCIND.
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE RESCINDED THE SUSPENSION, WHEN IT HELD THAT DEFENDANT HAD MADE A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR RECISSION, AND THE STATE FAILED TO PROPERLY INTRODUCE THE LOGBOOK RESULTS AND NEVER INTRODUCED THE DEFENDANTS BREATH TEST RESULTS.
This appeal is taken as a matter of right under Supreme Court Rules 301 and 303(a)(1), which govern appeals from final judgments in civil proceedings. Supreme Court Rule 301 provides that every final judgment of a circuit court in a civil case is appealable as of right. 155 Ill.2d R. 301. Rule 303(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that the notice of appeal from final judgments in civil cases "must be filed with the clerk of the circuit court within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment appealed from." 155 Ill.2d R. 303(a)(1).
The issue of whether the court erred in denying the Defendant's petition to rescind is based completely on the question of whether the State rebutted the defendant's prima facie case. That question should be reviewed de novo because the facts are not in dispute, and the issue involved is wholly a question of law. See, e.g. People v. Malchow, 193 Ill.2d 413, 418, 250 Ill.Dec. 670, 739 N.E.2d 433 (2000). Thus, this appeal should be reviewed under the de novo standard.
In People v. Hamilton (1987), 118 Ill.2d 153, 113 Ill.Dec. 53, 514 N.E.2d 965. the Illinois Supreme Court further explained the holding of Orth, and held that a licensee seeking rescission of summary suspension may also raise the issue of noncompliance with the breath-testing regulations at a rescission hearing.
In this case, the State failed to avoid rescission by failing to move for the admission of the test into evidence and by failing to lay the required foundation as commanded by People v. Orth, infra.
"The rules of criminal procedure do not apply to a rescission hearing. ( Moore, 138 Ill.2d at 169, 149 Ill.Dec. 278, 561 N.E.2d 648.) Rather, the proceeding is governed by the rules of civil procedure. ( People v. Teller (1991), 207 Ill.App.3d 346, 350, 152 Ill.Dec. 364, 565 N.E.2d 1046.) Thus, the Department's standards are not the only requirements for the admissibility of breath tests into evidence: the ordinary rules for the admissibility of evidence also apply. (See People v. Keith (1992), 148 Ill.2d 32, 42, 169 Ill.Dec. 276, 591 N.E.2d 449.) 'Basic rules of evidence require that a party must lay the foundations for the introduction of a document into evidence.'"
As in Graney, the State's foundation for admission of the logbook entries in this case was almost completely lacking. First, the Darien police officer was not the custodian of Willowbrook's logbook. Second, he failed to establish whether and how he knew that the entries were recorded accurately in Willowbrook's logbook. Third, he never testified that these entries were made in the regular and systematic course of Willowbrook's police business. Lastly, he offered no opinions about the maintenance and upkeep on Willowbrook's breath machine and logbook.
Even if such a foundation for admission was laid, the logbook records themselves were never actually moved into evidence and admitted. Thus, the trial court never even determined for itself whether the machine was in fact properly tested for accuracy by a licensed inspector in accordance with the Regulations.
"Moreover, even if the decal were admissible, we agree with the trial court that the State failed to present evidence that the witness/operator complied with the Department's regulations, a prerequisite for the admission of the logbook and the printout *** Without evidence that the witness/operator administered the test properly, 'the State cannot lay the proper foundation for the admission of the breath test results.' ( Keith, 148 Ill.2d at 43, 169 Ill.Dec. 276, 591 N.E.2d 449.) The purpose of requiring compliance with the Department's standards is "that these machines are not foolproof, and require not only the correct use to obtain an accurate result, but also a knowledgeable operator to observe the test." ( Keith, 148 Ill.2d at 44, 169 Ill.Dec. 276, 591 N.E.2d 449.) People v. Graney, supra, 234 Ill.App.3d at 506.
Perhaps most importantly, the State never moved into evidence the Defendant's breath test results. This failure is fatal to the case, as such is required under Orth in order to avoid a rescission.
For all of the above reasons, the court was required to grant a rescission under Orth, Hamilton, and Graney when the State failed to properly rebut the Defendant's prima facie case by moving for admission of the breath test and laying the requisite foundation for the breath test result.
Defendant prays that this Honorable Court reverse the order entered by the trial court denying the Defendant's petition to rescind, and in its stead enter an order directing the trial court to rescind the defendant's summary suspension.
I certify that this brief conforms to the requirements of Rules 341(a) and (b). The length of this brief, excluding the appendix, is _12__ pages.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.