Court Opinion

ID: 9719951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:10:28.704632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:11.582595
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WRIGHT, dissenting: The majority correctly notes that administrative regulations are valid only to the extent that they do not conflict with the provisions of the statute authoring the regulations. Then, the majority concludes that the drafters of section 1286.330(b) intended to limit the category or persons authorized to collect urine for purposes of future forensic analysis to a finite group, including only the arresting officer, another law enforcement officer, an agency employee, or a nurse. However, the majority’s thoughtful analysis overlooks the fact that this construction causes the regulation to conflict with the statute authorizing the very regulations at issue in this appeal. Specifically, section 11 — 501.2 of the Code restricts the authorization to collect blood from a driver to the following finite categories of persons: a licensed physician, a registered nurse, a trained phlebotomist, a certified paramedic, or other qualified person approved by the State Police. I note that the statute expressly excludes these “limitation[s]” with regard to persons allowed to collect urine. The statute provides: “This limitation shall not apply to the taking of breath or urine specimens.” 625 ILCS 5/11 — 501.2 (West 2006). If the statute would allow, but not limit, urine and breath samples to be collected by “a licensed physician, a registered nurse, a trained phlebotomist, a certified paramedic, or other qualified person approved by the State Police,” the majority’s view that urine collected by a phlebotomist is improper does not follow the language of the statute. The majority’s construction places limitation on those persons allowed to collect breath and urine which in my view were not intended by the statute itself. Consequently, I conclude that the intent of section 1286.330(b) of title 20 of the Administrative Code must be construed to allow for the collection of urine by persons who “may” include, but would not be limited to, the arresting officer, another law enforcement officer, an agency employee, or nurse. I suggest “may” is permissive. I agree, however, that the gender of the person collecting the urine and the person providing the urine sample is a mandatory requirement providing that the gender “shall” be the same. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent and would simply reverse the lower court’s ruling without remand.