Court Opinion

ID: 9711463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:32:21.741344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:05.208720
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. Unlike the majority, I see no ambiguity in section 11 — 501.5 of the Code. The statute clearly states that the sole purpose for which law enforcement may employ preliminary breath screening tests is “the purpose of assisting [the officer] with the determination of whether to require a chemical test as authorized under Sections 11 — 501.1 and 11 — 501.2, and the appropriate type of test to request.” (Emphasis added.) 625 ILCS Ann. 5/11 — 501.5 (Michie 1996). The statute is equally clear in authorizing only the defendant, not the People, to use the results of the preliminary breath screening test in a court proceeding involving a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of section 11 — 501 of the Code. 625 ILCS Ann. 5/11 — 501.5 (Michie 1996). As the majority noted, the most reliable indicator of legislative intent is the language of the statute (People v. Tucker, 167 Ill. 2d 431 (1995)), and where the language of the statute is clear, it will be given effect without relying upon .other aids for construction. People v. Zaremba, 158 Ill. 2d 36 (1994). In construing the words of the statute, we must give them their plain and ordinary meaning. Hernon v. E.W. Corrigan Construction Co., 149 Ill. 2d 190, 194-95 (1992). Unlike the majority, I see no need to resort to the abyss of legislative history. The plain and ordinary meaning of the words in the PBT statute is clear. The test may be used in only two situations: (1) by a law enforcement officer to assist him or her in determining whether to require certain chemical tests authorized by statute, and (2) by a defendant as evidence in any administrative or court proceeding involving a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or in an implied consent hearing under section 11 — 501.1 of the Code. If, as the majority suggests, the legislative intent of the PBT statute was actually contrary to the clear and unambiguous language enacted into law, and the legislature actually intended other unstated purposes and uses for the test, it should have taken care to accurately express its intent.