Court Opinion

ID: 9743174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:27:19.036123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:39.753436
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STOUDER, dissenting: I agree with the result reached by my colleagues granting defendant Lesiotis’ motion to dismiss; however, I respectfully disagree with the reasoning and result reached regarding the other defendants. In my opinion the trial court correctly applied Village of Mundelein v. Hartnett (1983), 117 Ill. App. 3d 1011, 454 N.E.2d 29, and dismissed the implied consent hearings. The appropriate portion of the implied consent statute provides for a hearing where it is to be determined, inter alia, “whether the person was placed under arrest for an offense as defined in Section 11 — 501 of this Code or a similar provision of a local ordinance.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 95x/2, par. 11 — 501.1(c).) It. is undisputed these defendants were not placed under arrest for a violation of section 11 — 501; therefore, each arrest had to have been made for violation of an ordinance similar to section 11 — 501. The basis of the invalidity of the ordinance in Hartnett was the court’s conclusion that the ordinance was not similar to section 11 — 501, and in fact the ordinance was so dissimilar it was invalid. The ordinances involved in the case sub judice are legally equivalent to or substantially the same as the ordinance in Hartnett and are as a matter of law dissimilar to section 11 — 501. Since the arrests were not for violations of similar ordinances, this requirement of the implied consent provision is not satisfied, and the trial court properly found in favor of defendants. The majority’s reliance on Michigan v. DeFillippo (1979), 443 U.S. 31, 61 L. Ed. 2d 343, 99 S. Ct. 2627, is not determinative of this appeal, since we are concerned with an arrest under an ordinance which is dissimilar to section 11 — 501 and not with the validity of an arrest pursuant to an ordinance subsequently declared invalid. Based upon my analysis of this case, I would affirm the trial court’s judgments in favor of defendants.