Will Major New Changes to Illinois’ DUI law be Enacted Next Week?

Secretary of State Jesse White, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), the Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists (AAIM) and the breath ignition interlock industry have been working to foist major changes in Illinois drunk driving law, without giving anyone much of a chance to think it through.

I first heard of this Wednesday afternoon when I received a phone call about it from Larry Davis, (Mr. Davis is one of the top attorneys in the state who, like me, represents revoked motorists before the Secretary of State).  Mr. Davis had only just learned about it himself, and the same goes for every one else in our field of practice.  It turns out that a shell bill had been introduced in the Illinois Senate (SB 924) and was stealthily moving towards a vote next week (It is now scheduled for a hearing before the Transportation Committee on Tuesday).  Apparently, the powers that be didn’t intend to inform the public about the actual details of the bill (which is a 100 page pdf file: BAIID Rewrite FINAL – LRB) until as late as possible.

I did not receive a copy of the .pdf until this morning, and I have been trying to read it in between court appearances.

Here are some basics of what it will do (based upon my first review):

A.    It creates a new type of permit, called an Ignition Interlock Permit (IIP).  This is basically the same thing as the current Monitored Device Driving Permit (MDDP) that first time DUI offenders can obtain now, except it would be expanded to include revoked drivers (who are typically repeat DUI offenders) as well.

B.    How it would affect new DUI cases:
1.    DUI suspensions will be lengthened, but most of them can be reduced back to the current length if the person gets a IIP permit within 30 days of the effective date of the
suspension, and has remained in compliance with the terms and conditions of the IIP.
2.    This means that a first offender who fails a breath, blood or urine test will have a one year license suspension (which can get reduced down to 6 months); a second offender who does the same will have an eighteen month suspension (which can be reduced to 12 months).
3.    A repeat offender who fails a blood, breath or urine test will have an eighteen month suspension.  For some reason, this suspension cannot be reduced.
4.    Good news, however, for repeat offenders who refuse a breath test.  Although their suspension will be increased from thirty-six months to forty-eight, they will be eligible for a IIP (currently, they would not be eligible for any driving relief during the three years of their suspension).  This suspension would be reduced down to three years upon successful completion of the IIP.
5.    Proof of an alcohol evaluation and treatment will be required to end the suspension, but this will be done through affidavits sent in the mail, not a formal hearing.  Thus, treatment would be required even if someone was found not guilty of a DUI, but there was enough evidence to sustain a summary suspension (i.e., “reasonable suspicion”).

C.    How it would affect drivers revoked for DUI:
1.    It would remove the concept of “hard time” which currently prevents a person from obtaining a permit (except when he or she can prove a hardship) for one to ten years, or blocks someone from obtaining a permit during a concurrent DUI summary suspension.
2.    It would remove the requirement that a person need to undergo an alcohol evaluation, treatment, and in some cases, proves abstinence from alcohol and active involvement in a support group before granting a driving permit.
3.    Whereas the current system uses the promise of a drivers license or permit as a carrot to get someone to get into treatment, or a stick, by extending the length of suspension or revocation if they get new arrests, the new proposed system would, for the most part, get rid of this.  If you are revoked for a DUI, and get another DUI, you can still get a new IIP (after you get out of jail, of course).
4.    This new proposal seems particularly inadequate when it comes to drugged drivers.  An ignition interlock will not prevent someone from operating a motor vehicle under the influence of heroin, for instance.
5.    An evaluation, treatment and a hearing will still be needed for full reinstatement.

I am still in the process of thinking about these changes, what it would mean for my clients and the public at large.  There is a lot to consider.  I see no reason why this 100 pages of proposed changes to our DUI laws has been kept secret and is only being sprung on us now, in some sort of attempt to avoid debate.  Shouldn’t such major changes be fully discussed?

What do you think?

7 thoughts on “Will Major New Changes to Illinois’ DUI law be Enacted Next Week?

  1. Pingback: Proposed bill to overhaul of DUI laws has been withdrawn | illinoisduilawyer

  2. This expansion of the use of the BAIID unit does not address the large amount of offenders arrested for marijuana, prescription medication and other drugs. As an evaluator and treatment provider, I am against doing away with the Hearing process. It is obviously not a perfect process but I feel that it is more effective than not having a Hearing process at all.

  3. Thank you for your comment. You are absolutely correct and I am sure this is why the bill is being re-thought. The current system, while not perfect, has a very low recidivist rate amongst people who have received reinstatement. That is because under the current system, people cannot get back on the road until they have been evaluated, undergone treatment, and had a hearing where they have to testify and be subject to cross-examination, to determine if they are still a danger to the public. The proposed new law eliminates most of those safeguards, to say nothing about the fact that BAIIDs don’t test for drug usage. A person could simply switch from alcohol to marijuana use, yet drive and endanger the public with a BAIID.

  4. If you were in my shoes, you would be jumping up and down like me. I have three DUIs (1 in 1987, 1 in 1989 and 1 in 2006 (all alcohol). I have no other infractions like driving while revoked. Those are the only three things on my record in 25 years. Since 2006, I have not been able to make more than $13,000 a year. I can not afford to try and jump through hoops to be told come see me again in six months. Just let me get a BAIID, without evaluation fees, hearing fees etc.

    If you are concerned about people who use drugs, make those people go through all the BS to try and get their license back….. But give people like me a break. I am 46 now. Would you like to keep me poor my whole life?

    Just saying, I have served 7 years of my 5 year revocation. I understand you are concerned about others that the BAIDD can control, but do not lump us all together please. This is would be a GODSEND for me.

    I will graduate in December with a Culinary Arts degree and so far have a 4.0. I would like to have another chance at life before I die.


      • Well, that’s certainly a bummer. But since MADD likes it hopefully they won’t give up trying. The other bill you mentioned for those with 4 convictions, do know if it was similar to this one?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s