Court Opinion

ID: 9718071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:16:20.345781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:57.177933
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE INGLIS, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I agree with the trial court that defendant’s combativeness and abusive behavior excused the arresting officer’s failure to read the warning to motorist. The majority seeks to distinguish Aultman on the basis that in that case the officer twice attempted to read the warning over the defendant’s screaming. (Aultman, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 306.) As the majority notes, the court in Aultman urged that in all but the most egregious circumstances the officer should read the warnings. (Aultman, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 309.) I believe that the officer in the present case was confronted with just such egregious circumstances. Defendant fought, cursed, yelled, and refused to cooperate in every instance. He drove at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour to avoid arrest. He had to be forcibly relieved of his driver’s license and his keys. He kicked the officers and had to be pried and dragged from his vehicle. He answered every inquiry with verbal attacks and yelled throughout the reading of his Miranda warnings. Even after he arrived at the police station, defendant was violent and abusive and had to be restrained. Defendant never submitted to the officer’s authority. Although defendant was confined in a holding cell and could no longer physically interfere with his arrest, he retained the ability to yell and thereby audibly prevent the reading of the warning to motorist just as he had prevented the reading of his Miranda, warnings. Under these circumstances, defendant, by his actions, waived the right to be read the warning to motorist. For this reason, I would affirm the decision of the trial court.