Document: 463 U.S. 1112 103 S.Ct. 3513 77 L.Ed.2d 1267 ILLINOIS, Petitionerv.Milton D. BATCHELDER. No. 82-947. July 6, 1983. PER CURIAM. 1 An Illinois statute, Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 951/2, ¶ 11-501.1, provides that any person who drives an automobile in state consents to take a breath-analysis test when requested do so by officer as incident arrest for driving while intoxicated.1 The statute also prescribes the manner which is be administered and nine-point list of matters arresting inform arrestee, including right refuse submit breath analysis fact such refusal may admitted evidence against him "in hearing concerning suspension, revocation or denial his license permit. . ." Id., at (4). Finally relevant our purposes subsection (d) pertinent part: 2 "The shall file with Clerk Circuit Court county was made, sworn statement naming refusing complete under provisions this Section. Such include had reasonable cause believe motor vehicle within State influence intoxicating liquor 3 thereupon notify writing privilege operate will suspended unless, 28 days from date mailing notice, he request thereon. 4 proceed same other civil proceedings, except scope proceedings cover only issues whether placed [driving intoxicated], grounds liquor, informed orally provided paragraph (a) would if refused whether, after being advised, upon officer."2 5 Respondent Milton Batchelder stopped Peoria Police Department observed respondent reckless erratic manner. After completing stop, approached respondent, determined intoxicated, arrested on charge liquor. thereafter test. refused. then executed filed read 6 "I hereby certify I have above named arrest, time said that: Traveling too fast alley pedestrians around, crossed Walnut w/o slowing, maintained speed behind Slipper Club parked abruptly 519 S.W. Adams. further did willfully analyses accordance Section 11-501.1 Vehicle Code, possible consequences her refusal." Pet. Cert. 5-6. 7 To avoid having automatically suspended, exercised statutory pursuant 11-501.1(e). 8 Prior taking evidence, judge presiding asked there were motions. Respondent's counsel moved dismiss officer's affidavit, quoted above, ground it not facts showing arrest. found affidavit comply 11-501.1(d) because failed order entered denying State's suspension respondent's license. 9 appealed Appellate Illinois, Third Judicial District agreed trial court stated insufficient support conclusion intoxicated arrested. Court, however, held literally complied requirements 11-501.1(d); requires "had liquor." nonetheless deemed "insufficient due its failure comport constitution, specifically, Fourth Fourteenth Amendments thereof." 107 Ill.App.3d 81, 83, 62 Ill.Dec. 837, 839, 437 N.E.2d 364, 366 (1982). 10 Relying decision Delaware v. Prouse, 440 648, 99 1391, 59 660 (1979), opined "[t]he United States Constitution pertain situation stopping detaining occupants constitute 'seizure' meaning those amendments. 84, Ill.Dec., 840, N.E.2d, 367. relied Terry Ohio, 392 1, 88 1868, 20 889 (1968), proposition permissibility particular law enforcement practice judged balancing intrusion individual's Amendment interests promotion legitimate governmental interests." Ibid. Applying standard here, constitutional set out, prepared 11-501.1(d), "the underlying circumstances belief 11 * In application Federal implied consent inexplicably look how undertook similar task Mackey Montrym, 443 2612, 61 321 (1979). Mackey, we Massachusetts mandating driver's violate Due Process Clause Amendment. procedures are, anything, even more solicitous values than upheld Mackey. 12 We noted "that statutorily defined implicates protectible property interest." 10, S.Ct., 2616-2617. There, question presented "what process protect erroneous deprivation Ibid.3 should resolved considering following three factors: 13 " 'First, private interest affected offic al action; second, risk through used, probable value, any, additional substitute procedural safeguards; finally, Government's interest, function involved fiscal administrative burdens requirement entail.' Ibid, quoting Mathews Eldridge, 424 319, 335, 96 893, 903, 47 18 (1976). 14 utilized equally applicable dispositive case. 15 First, continued possession use recognized However, undertaking first step Eldridge concern centered duration potentially wrongful interest," U.S., 12, 2618. Under driver pending outcome entitled demand. There no deprived prior hearing. Paragraph clearly grants before suspended. Thus, can seek solace analysis. 16 "[T]he second stage inquiry consideration likelihood consequence used." supra, 13, 'something less evidentiary sufficient adverse action.' Dixon Love, 431 105, 113, 97 1723, 1727, 52 172 (1977). Clearly, then, predeprivation abundantly weights part favor constitutionality scheme. 17 final leg us identify involved; also, weigh balance served summary well burdens, result sought." 17, 2620. states depriving drunk permission continue operating particularly strong. recently commented carnage caused drivers" South Dakota Neville, --- ----, 916, 920, 74 748 (1983). See 17-18, 2620-2621; Perez Campbell, 402 637, 657 672, 91 1704, 1715 1722, 29 233 (1971) (BLACKMUN, J., concurring); Tate Short, 401 395, 401, 668, 130 Breithaupt Abram, 352 432, 439, 408, 412, 448 (1957). Indeed, effect Court's opinion effort halt "carnage" has prompted action That substantially outlined 11-501.1(d). Again, procedure refutes suggestion scheme runs afoul Accordingly, conclude does require officers enforcing state's recite specific concrete constituting into icating Ill.App., failing accords all, probably more, assures. petition certiorari granted, judgment District, reversed case remanded inconsistent opinion. 19 It ordered. Justice STEVENS, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 21 This comes intermediate appellate Court. Supreme declined review. Its practical amount detail police must supporting suspend relates implemented one state. suspect decided preferred address both parties adequately represented. 22 paper behalf losing party reads, full, follows: 23 "Court Clerk; Re: vs: No: 82-947 24 "In regard your letter 3-31-83 pertaining captioned matter. 25 heart problem am unemployed. 26 funds hire attorney. 27 "Is appoint me rule record appeal? unlearned little formal education. "Unless give some help able pursue 30 "This written by; Donald E. Worlow 31 302 Pontiac Rd. 32 Marquette Hgts., Ill. 33 "For 34 /s/ Batchelder" 35 If important enough merit merits justify appointment represent defending below. respectfully dissent disposition. "Suspension license—Implied Consent. Any anywhere thereby consents, terms Section, chemical determine alcoholic content blood made lawful evidenced issuance Uniform Traffic Ticket, offense 11-501 Act [pr scribing intoxicated] provision municipal ordinance." Two statutes labeled 951/2 passed General Assembly day. version text note supra. event, differences language between two affect 1105. purported rely Fourth, Fourteenth, extent are stake see 662-663, 1400-1401, they amply protected long "at least articulable suspicion [respondent was] subject seizure violation law. 663, 1401. logical thrust somehow denied specify led alcohol. thus treat resting exclusively grounds.

Category: 3