Opinion ID: 3134248
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Ill 2d 211, 219 (1995); People v. Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d 226, 245

Text: (1984). Because the amended statute falls within the special needs exception to the fourth amendment, we believe that it also comports with the search and seizure provision of article I, section 6, of our state constitution. The additional recognition in section 6 of a zone of personal privacy does not alter our analysis. As we have already determined, a driver has a reduced expectation of privacy in those circumstances in which the amended statute is applicable, for the driver has been involved in a serious accident while operating a vehicle in a highly regulated environment and, moreover, is under arrest, as evidenced by the receipt of a traffic ticket. Contrary to Fink's argument, this court's earlier decision in King does not control the resolution of this question. The King court believed that the prior statute violated the privacy provision of the Illinois Constitution because drivers could be tested even though they had not been arrested and even though there was no probable cause to believe they had committed an offense. King, 153 Ill. 2d at 464-65. Under the amended statute, however, no driver is chemically tested unless the person has been arrested, based on the existence of probable cause, for a nonequipment violation of the Vehicle Code. We thus believe that a driver's zone of privacy is not unconstitutionally invaded when a driver is chemically tested pursuant to section 11--501.6, and we therefore conclude the amended statute does not violate article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution.