Court Opinion

ID: 9726065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:29:29.694228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:38.765067
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE BILANDIC, dissenting: I am not persuaded by the majority’s attempt to distinguish the instant statute from the 1991 version of the same statute that this court declared unconstitutional in King v. Ryan, 153 Ill. 2d 449 (1992). As the trial court determined, the current statute is "no different, substantively,” from the 1991 statute. If King correctly declared the 1991 statute unconstitutional, then we should likewise hold that the current statute is unconstitutional. If, on the other hand, the court now wishes to reconsider and reject the majority opinion in King, it should do so expressly. Instead, the majority makes a disingenuous and unpersuasive attempt to reconcile its decision with King. The majority claims that the current statute is different in several respects from its predecessor, and that these differences support a conclusion that the current statute is constitutional. The purported distinctions, however, are illusory and do not justify or permit a conclusion different from that reached in King. The current statute, like its predecessor, essentially provides that drivers give implied consent to the chemical testing of their breath, blood or urine to determine its blood-alcohol or drug content whenever a police officer determines that the driver has been in an accident that resulted in death or personal injury and that the driver committed a traffic violation. Neither statute required any individualized suspicion that the driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The only differences between the two statutes are that (1) the current statute defines "personal injury” slightly differently than the 1991 statute; (2) under the current statute, the police officer must give the driver involved in the accident a traffic ticket, while the former statute required the officer to determine that the affected driver was "at fault” in causing the accident; and (3) the current statute, unlike the 1991 version, does not expressly state that the test. results may be used in criminal proceedings, but permits the use of test results in such proceedings. In King this court declared the 1991 statute unconstitutional, in part, because it violated the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. The court found that the provision that authorized chemical testing of a driver without a warrant or probable cause was unconstitutional. The King court concluded that the "special needs” exception to the fourth amendment’s warrant requirement did not apply to the statute. King, 153 Ill. 2d at 462. Despite the obvious similarity between the current statute and the 1991 version found unconstitutional in King, the majority nevertheless finds that the current statute does not violate the fourth amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the majority opinion, like the King opinion, considers the "special needs” test. Unlike King, however, the majority finds that the current statute satisfies all of the requirements of that test. The majority first notes that the regulation of highways and automobiles reduces a driver’s expectation of privacy. The majority acknowledges that the King opinion found that such regulation is insufficient to excuse the warrant requirement. The majority "distinguishes” King, however, on the basis of a supposedly "narrower” definition of "personal injury” in the current statute. In fact, the definition of "personal injury” under the current statute is no narrower than under its predecessor. Both statutes governed only those drivers involved in serious automobile accidents. The majority here, unlike the King majority, simply concludes that drivers involved in serious accidents have a diminished expectation of privacy that justifies a warrantless search. I continue to agree with the King court’s conclusion that such drivers do not necessarily have a diminished expectation of privacy that justifies subjecting them to a warrantless search without any requirement of individualized suspicion. The majority here also finds that the search authorized under the current statute is "minimally intrusive” and thus satisfies the second prong of the "special needs” test. In reaching this conclusion, the majority notes that the driver subjected to the search is already required to remain at the scene of a serious accident while medical assistance is rendered to injured persons. The opinion also notes that the search is permitted only when the driver is "arrested as evidenced by the issuance of a Uniform Traffic Ticket.” The majority fails to adequately explain why these two factors alter the King court’s conclusion that the warrantless search at issue is not minimally intrusive. King concluded that a warrantless search to determine the blood-alcohol content of a person’s breath, blood or urine is intrusive and that the 1991 statute authorizing such a search therefore did not satisfy the second prong of the "special needs” test. King, 153 Ill. 2d at 462-63. At the time the King court declared the 1991 statute unconstitutional, drivers were also required to remain at the scene of a serious accident. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 95½, par. 11 — 403. The King court nevertheless found that the warrantless search at issue was an "intrusive” search. King, 153 Ill. 2d at 462-63. Similarly, King found the search intrusive even though the police officer conducting the search was first required to conclude that the driver was partially "at fault” in causing the accident. I fail to see why a different conclusion is permissible here simply because the officer must now issue a written traffic ticket. The current statute is arguably even more intrusive than its predecessor, which required a police officer to determine that there was some link between the motorist’s driving and the accident. Under the current statute, no such causal link is required. If a motorist is charged with any offense under the motor vehicle code (with the exception of an equipment violation), then that person is susceptible to a search regardless of whether the motorist is responsible for the accident. The purported "distinctions” cited in the majority opinion between the current statute and the statute declared unconstitutional in King are not substantive differences, but simply excuses used to justify a conclusion inconsistent with that reached in King. The majority finally concludes that the current stat- ■ ute serves the State’s needs, beyond the need for normal law enforcement. The majority distinguishes the 1991 statute on the ground that the current statute deletes the provision which expressly authorized the use of test results in criminal proceedings. The King court cited this provision as evidence that the search permitted under the 1991 statute did not serve special needs, beyond the needs of law enforcement, because "one of the stated purposes of the search is to gather evidence for criminal prosecution.” King, 153 Ill. 2d at 462. The majority here finds that the legislature, by deleting the provision expressly authorizing the use of search results in criminal proceedings, has demonstrated that criminal prosecution is incidental to the primary purpose of the statute. I disagree. The King court determined that, to the extent that the 1991 statute relied upon criminal sanctions to accomplish the state’s goal of deterring drunk driving and removing drunk drivers from the road, the statute did not serve the state’s interests beyond the need for law enforcement. The majority opinion acknowledges, as it must, that search results will routinely be used in criminal proceedings. Moreover, a review of the legislative history reveals that the current statute, like its predecessor, was intended to secure evidence for use in criminal proceedings against intoxicated motorists. To suggest that the deletion of the provision expressly authorizing the use of search results in criminal proceedings renders the statute constitutional simply exalts form over substance. If King correctly declared the 1991 statute unconstitutional, none of the distinctions raised in the majority opinion between the 1991 statute and the current statute justify a contrary finding here. The majority’s analysis is consistent only with the dissenting opinions in King. Because I continue to adhere to King, I respectfully dissent. JUSTICES HARRISON and NICKELS join in this dissent.