Case Name: People v. Tomczak (.pdf)
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District
Date Decision Filed: 11/19/09
In this rescission case, a police officer arrested the defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol. The defendant argued that the government should rescind the statutory summary suspension of his driver’s license because he was not warned by the police about the suspension consequences that would occur if chemical testing revealed methamphetamine in his blood or urine. He did receive the alcohol-related warning. The Illinois Compiled Statutes require that a motorist be warned about the suspension consequences of a positive chemical test for methamphetamine (among other warnings). Here, there wasn’t any evidence to suggest the involvement of methamphetamine; the evidence only suggested that this was a DUI case involving alcohol. The appellate court acknowledged that the defendant received a defective warning, however, since the defendant was not a member of the class that would be affected by the defective warning, rescission was not available to him (“there was no evidence that [the] defendant’s suspension was based on the presence of methamphetamine or that a test would have revealed that [the] defendant had methamphetamine in his system”).
So it is harmless error?
That doesn’t make much intellectual sense to me. I really don’t understand how someone can intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily waive his/her rights to his/her own bodily integrity if he/she is not fully informed. It is a warrantless search.
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, PA DUI Attorney