In an historic vote, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended today that all 50 states lower the legal limit from 0.08 to 0.05 for driving under the influence.

At the present time, all 50 states have a limit for the alcohol concentration in any person’s blood or breath of 0.08. Anyone who operates a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.08 or higher would be guilty of DUI and subject to a driver’s license suspension.

The law in Illinois provides that a person is per se guilty of DUI if that alcohol concentration is 0.08, regardless of whether they are impaired. The DUI statute is 625 ILCS 5/11-501. It provides the following:

(a) A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this State while:

(1) the alcohol concentration in the person’s blood or breath is 0.08 or more based on the definition of blood and breath units in Section 11-501.2;

(2) under the influence of alcohol;

Where the driver submits to chemical testing (eg, a breathalyzer or blood test), the driver will receive two tickets, one for violation of section 11-501(a)(1), and another for violation of 11-501(a)(2). Where the motorist refuses chemical testing, the charge will lie in 11-501(a)(2), which alleges that the driver was impaired.

Today’s vote from the NTSB is not binding on the states. The entity has no authority to mandate that any state must change its laws. It would be up to the Department of Transportation to endorse the recommendation, and then incumbent on Congress to issue a mandate.

Under federalism, each of the 50 states has the right to make its own laws on crime and punishment, known as a state’s police power. The federal government cannot write the laws for any of the states. However, the federal government can induce the states to change their laws by withholding federal funding for road construction.

Over the course of time, the legal limit in Illinois has been steadily going down. For example, the legal limit was 0.15 from 1958 until 1967. In that year, it was reduced to 0.10, and finally in 1997, the legal limit was reduced again to the current 0.08.

The NTSB says that 10,000 people die in alcohol-related traffic accidents every year. The group also says that if all 50 states reduced their legal limit to 0.05, it would save almost 1,000 lives each year.

This recommendation from the NTSB has serious implications for Illinois DUI laws. The problem is that every driver arrested under suspicion of DUI has a right to choose whether to submit to chemical testing. If the person submits to a chemical test which discloses an alcohol concentration in his blood or breath of 0.08 or higher, the Secretary of State will suspend his driver’s license (eg, a statutory summary suspension). There is an additional penalty for refusing. Anyone who refuses a chemical test will have a suspension twice as long. Under the law today, a person who fails chemical testing will be suspended for six months, while the person who refuses chemical testing will be suspended for 12 months.

Given that less alcohol would result in a person exceeding the legal limit of 0.05, it should be expected that more drivers would refuse the breathalyzer. And thus, more drivers would suffer a longer summary suspension.

The food and hospitality industry will campaign against lowering the legal limit. Some say that a law such as this would put bars and taverns out of business.

It is dubious whether a lower legal limit will actually increase public safety. The reason is, most alcohol-related traffic accidents occur with a driver who is very intoxicated. The offenders responsible for fatal accidents typically have an alcohol concentration in the blood or breath many times over the legal limit. And so, a legal limit of 0.05 would do nothing to deter these offenders from drinking and driving.

This argument applies to stricter gun control measures. Criminal don’t abide by those laws anyway, so the only people who are affected are law-abiding citizens.

A lower legal limit would ensnare a very large population of otherwise responsible people who had one or two alcoholic beverages at dinner.

It remains to be seen whether the federal government will take action based on this vote by the NTSB. If it does, it could be the beginning of a very significant change in criminal law.

Illinois may soon see the speed limit increase to 70 mph. The State Senate passed a bill yesterday that would increase the speed limit to 70 mph on interstate highways. The measure was passed on a 41-6 vote.

The current top speed on the interstate is 65 mph in rural areas, and 55 mph in urban areas. The law would push the limit up to 70 mph, which is the speed limit for more than 30 other states.

But the legislation would allow Cook County and all collar counties to opt out, and also two counties adjacent to St. Louis.

The measure is expected to pass the House and be signed by the Governor. The law would go into effect on January 1, 2014.

It is unclear how the Illinois State Police feel about an increased speed limit. The fact is that near Chicago, almost all traffic exceeds the speed limit by at least 10 mph. Some troopers may feel the 70 mph limit will encourage drivers to speed even more.

Remember that starting July 1, 2013, there is no court supervision for speeding more than 25 over the limit in an urban district.

Lawmakers in the House of Representatives will vote soon on a bill that allows police officers to tow and impound vehicles for driving without proof of insurance.

Proposed by Representative Joe Sosnowski, R-Rockford, the bill would amend 625 ILCS 5/4-203. This is the statute that authorizes law enforcement to tow and impound vehicles abandoned on highways.

Through this statute and other provisions of the vehicle code, police officers are authorized to tow and impound vehicles that are used in the commission of certain offenses:

• Driving under the influence in violation of 625 ILCS 5/11-501. See 625 ILCS 5/4-205(e)(allowing for towing and impoundment after arrest for DUI, which is known as a “DUI Hold”). Note that an arrest for DUI in Chicago results in a DUI hold with a minimum penalty of $2,000 under 7-24-226 of the Municipal Code of Chicago. This is probably the highest in the state. It is not a defense that the owner, who has to pay the penalty, was not the person who committed the DUI. People have appealed this issue and lost. See Jackson v. City of Chicago.
• Driving while license suspended or revoked (625 ILCS 5/6-303(a)). See 625 ILCS 5/6-303(e)(requiring towing and impoundment after an arrest for DWLS).

The proposed legislation would add an additional offense, driving without insurance (625 ILCS 5/3-707), to the list which allow for towing and impoundment.

Through a law called Home Rule, municipalities can enact vehicle code ordinances that are Class A misdemeanors. Many villages and cities do so in order to collect the revenue from the offense. To date, I am not aware of any Home Rule unit that allows towing and impound solely on the basis of driving without insurance. Usually the police are required to ticket the driver for another offense like DUI or DWLS. This provision would apply statewide and supercede any local rule.

Every driver in Illinois has to have a liability insurance policy (625 ILCS 5/7-601) with minimum coverage of $20,000 per person per accident. See 625 ILCS 5/7-203. It is estimated that up to 15% of drivers don’t have insurance in Illinois.

Operating a motor vehicle without proof of insurance is a business offense punishable by a minimum $500 fine on the first conviction and $1,000 fine on the second. See 625 ILCS 5/3-707(c). But if the driver is in an accident causing bodily harm to another, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor with a potential penalty of up to one year in jail. See 625 ILCS 5/3-707(a-5).

A conviction for driving without insurance results in a minimum 3-month suspension of driving privileges by the Secretary of State. See 625 ILCS 5/3-707(c-1).

Before the bill passed committee review, it was amended so that the driver would have his vehicle towed only he had a prior conviction for no insurance in the last year.

This bill is likely to pass the House and Senate, and get signed into law by the Governor. And considering the dire finances of many police departments, the administrative impounds will probably occur regularly.

State lawmakers made some important changes to the Illinois Vehicle Code for 2013. One change may lead to a substantial increase in driver’s license suspensions.

No Supervision for Speeding

Lawmakers amended 730 ILCS 5/5-6-1 to prohibit traffic court judges from giving supervision on speeding tickets more than 25 mph over the limit:

The provisions [allowing supervision] shall not apply to a defendant charged with violating subsection (b) of Section 11-601 of the Illinois Vehicle Code when the defendant was operating a vehicle, in an urban district, at a speed in excess of 25 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.

730 ILCS 5/5-6-1(q).

The general rule is that three convictions for moving violations in 12 months will result in a suspended driver’s license. If drivers can’t get supervision for speeding more than 25 mph over the limit, then the odds of a suspended license increase substantially.

Ban on Cell Phones for Commercial Drivers

CDL operators can no longer use cell phones on the road, unless they are hands-free. Under 625 ILCS 5/6-526 and 6-527, commercial vehicle drivers are prohibited form texting, and from making phone calls while holding a cell phone by hand.

A violation would constitute a serious traffic violation that can cancel a CDL.

The prohibition against applies even when the vehicle is stopped at a red light or due to traffic.

Illinois drivers have a few more laws to pay attention to on the road in 2013. Legislators in Springfield passed several important statutes amending the vehicle code.

One very important change to the vehicle code is a ban on texting for all CDL operators. In addition, commercial drivers cannot use a cell phone while driving a commercial motor vehicle, unless the device is hands-free.

Under the Uniform Commercial Driver’s License Act (UCDLA), a violation will constitute a serious traffic violation. A commercial driver who has two or more serious traffic violations in a 3-year period will have his CDL cancelled for at least 60 days.

The prohibition against texting and cell phones applies whether the vehicle is moving or temporarily stationary.

The statute banning texting, 625 ILCS 5/6-526, provides the following:

(a) A driver may not engage in texting while driving a commercial motor vehicle…

(c) For the purpose of this Section, when a person is operating a commercial motor vehicle, driving means operating a commercial motor vehicle on a highway, including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays. Driving does not include operating a commercial motor vehicle when the driver has moved the vehicle to the side of, or off, a highway and has halted in a location where the vehicle can safely remain stationary.

The section that bans the use of cell phones for making calls, 625 ILCS 5/6-527, has the same restrictions:

(a) A driver may not use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a commercial motor vehicle…

(c) For the purpose of this Section, driving means operating a commercial motor vehicle on a highway, including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays. Driving does not include operating a commercial motor vehicle when the driver has moved the vehicle to the side of, or off, a highway and has halted in a location where the vehicle can safely remain stationary.

The only exception to the ban is when texting or making a call is necessary to communicate with law enforcement, such as reporting an emergency.

But a hands-free device is not a violation of the statute. While the definition of texting is straight forward, the hands-free exception to the ban on cell phones is not so intuitive.

There are three situations which constitute a violation of the ban on cell phones:

(1) using at least one hand to hold a mobile telephone to conduct a voice communication;

(2) dialing or answering a mobile telephone by pressing more than a single button; or

(3) reaching for a mobile telephone in a manner that requires a driver to maneuver so that he or she is no longer in a seated driving position, restrained by a seat belt that is installed in accordance with 49 CFR 393.93 and adjusted in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer’s instructions.

625 ILCS 5/6-500(33).

Lawmakers in Springfield are drafting legislation that would provide a way for illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses. The bill has not been introduced in the General Assembly, but legislators expect to make the proposal soon.

This is not the first time our state lawmakers have tried to legalize undocumented aliens on the road. A similar proposal has been defeated twice already. But this time, the bill has support from Democrats and Republicans.

The bill is touted as a public safety measure in that it would bring an estimated 250,000 people into legal status requiring a driving test and insurance coverage.

The Chicago Tribune asserted that the proposed law is a response to the November 2012 election that saw record turnout of Latino voters.

Politicians held a press conference to support the bill  on November 20, 2012. Supporters in attendance included Senator John Cullerton, Governor Pat Quinn, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, as well as Republican Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka and former Governor Jim Edgar.

The broad outline of the proposal calls for expanding an existing program that provides temporary driver’s licenses for immigrants who are in Illinois legally. Under that program, foreign students and family members of temporary workers and long-term visitors can qualify for licenses that are valid for three years with the proper immigration paperwork.

That would be tweaked to allow illegal immigrants to qualify for the temporary licenses if they can provide a valid passport or identification card issued by a consulate, plus proof of Illinois residency. Applicants must pass a vision, written and road test and obtain insurance. The licenses could not be used as a form of identification.

Similar legislation passed out of the House in 2007 but stalled in the Senate. That measure also required applicants to be fingerprinted, a point that is still under negotiation in the latest proposal.

If the measure passes, Illinois would join Washington state and New Mexico with similar legislation on the books. Quinn has vowed to sign the proposal if it reaches his desk.

The Illinois Highway Safety Coalition says that illegal immigrants without licenses are responsible for $64 million in damages from traffic accidents in Illinois each year.

If half of the estimated 250,000 unlicensed immigrants became properly licensed and insured, Illinois insurance policy holders would save an estimated $46 million a year in premium payments. Nationwide, unlicensed motorists are five times likelier to be involved in a fatal crash than licensed drivers.

They also say that in 2011, almost 48,000 charges of driving without a license were issued in Cook County alone.

At the present time, undocumented aliens cannot obtain driver’s licenses from the Secretary of State. Every applicant for a license must have a social security number. It has been reported that stolen social security numbers can be bought for about $5,000 for use in obtaining a driver’s license.

Any person caught driving without a license will be charged with violating 625 ILCS 5/6-101. This charge is a Class B misdemeanor. The maximum penalty is 180 days jail. A conviction for driving without a license will cause the Secretary of State to suspend that person’s driving privileges. As a result, if that person is caught driving again, the offense is a higher Class A misdemeanor driving while license suspended (625 ILCS 5/6-303). The potential penalty for DWLS up to one year in jail.

Operating a motor vehicle without proof of insurance, 625 ILCS 5/3-707, is not a crime but still has serious consequences. The law requires a $500 fine and a conviction causes the Secretary of State to suspended that person’s license.

If a police officer tries to pull you over with his siren or flashing lights and you choose to drive away, you could be charged with a serious crime. The law in Illinois says that fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer is a Class A misdemeanor. You could go to jail for up to one year.

The offense of fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer comes from the Illinois Vehicle Code. The statute is found that 625 ILCS 5/11-204. This section provides that a first and second offense is a misdemeanor, but a third offense is a Class 4 felony.

A conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer will cause the Secretary of State to suspend your drivers license for six months. A second conviction will cause the Secretary to suspend your driving privileges for 12 months.

In order to convict the defendant, the prosecutor must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

That the driver or operator of a motor vehicle, having been given a visual or audible signal by police officer directing such driver or operator to stop, willfully failed or refused to obey such direction, increased his speed, extinguished his lights, or otherwise fled or attempted to elude the officer.

And so, it is apparent from the statute the defendant has a defense if he can show that it was unintentional for inadvertent. A person is guilty only if he took such action willfully. So, if the accused never saw the police officer behind him, it would not be a crime.

Second, the defendant may have a defense if he can show that the police officer had not used a visual or audible signal to pull over.

While most vehicle code offenses do not result in jail, an this is an offense for which the judge will make an exception. Judges are not interested in hearing excuses for why an offender failed to pull over in a traffic stop. For example, a person who has a second offense of DUI may never go to jail, but a person with a first offense of fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer may serve time.

Once seen as a means of improving public safety and increasing village revenues at the same time, traffic cameras are not so popular anymore. In fact, some villages in Illinois are deciding against red-light cameras despite the revenue they produce.

“I think they reduce accidents, but I have concerns about citing people for turning right on red because I don’t believe that leads to accidents,” said Hinsdale Police Chief Brad Bloom.

Mayor Arlene Mulder of Arlington Heights said the village board voted a few years ago against installing them because of similar concerns about right turns and a lack of fatal accidents. According to police department records in 2011, there were five fatal crashes in the village in the previous four years.

We just thought there’s not any interest to put in any red-light (cameras),” she said. “There was no strong request from the police department. We didn’t see the need for that.”

The Village of Schaumburg, for instance, did away with some red-light cameras near Woodfield Mall, a popular tourist destination, because of complaints. Some visitors threatened to never shop there again after receiving red-light camera tickets. Rather than lose sales tax revenues from these consumers, the village turned off the cameras.

In the southwest suburbs, Orland Park has not seen any evidence that the cameras actually reduced accidents.

Reducing crashes was the goal when three red-light cameras were installed in 2009 at high traffic intersections in Orland Park. Village spokesman Joe LaMargo said the village has seen the number of violations go down, but a reduction in accidents is not as evident. He said statistics on accidents are difficult to compute because only one leg of each of the three intersections is captured by the camera.

This is a positive development for drivers and taxpayers. Red-light cameras are used to fleece the public.

While the City of Chicago was busy moving forward with plans for speed cameras in Chicago’s school zones, apparently it overlooked an opinion from the Attorney General that says the program is not legal.

Plans for a multi-million dollar traffic camera system were developed to increase child safety, or generate additional revenue for the city, depending on who you ask.

But the program has been put on hold because 38 years ago, the Illinois Attorney General issued a written opinion that school zone speeding tickets cannot be legally enforced until it is determined that children are actually present.

This seems like common sense to most motorists, since school zone speed limit signs specifically say “ON SCHOOL DAYS WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT.”

Under the proposed system, basically, an traffic camera ticket could be challenged by a driver if the photo does not show a child present on a school day.

Nine companies have bid for the project, which is expected to be very lucrative for the city and the winning company. And as expected, the technology companies are displeased with the legal requirement:

“It was incredibly challenging,” said C.B. Brechin, the CEO of Brekford Corp., a Maryland-based camera operator that is among nine bidders in Chicago. “We had to come up with completely new technology because of the pedestrian requirement.

“It’s the only one in the nation, and you have a situation where this quirky law is damaging the entire program.”

The above quote says it all. What a shame that something as quirky as the law could interfere with Chicago raking in millions from its residents.

The Daily Herald is reporting that the number of traffic tickets in DuPage County has decreased. But it’s not because the police aren’t enforcing the law. The recession is to blame. From the report:

Police officers wrote 149,977 traffic tickets in DuPage between July 2011 and this past June, according to data from the circuit court clerk’s office. That’s 16,905 fewer tickets than the previous year.

Jerome Siegan, a spokesman for the DuPage circuit court clerk’s office, said it’s the second consecutive year traffic violations countywide have dropped.

One would think that if the county is receiving less revenue from traffic court, there would be pressure on the police to write more tickets. But DuPage County police departments don’t have the resources. Departments can’t afford the personnel.

Police in Naperville, which is in both DuPage and Will counties, acknowledge the number of tickets issued by the department has fallen since 2009, when 27,780 tickets were written. City police issued 25,611 citations in 2010 and 21,596 last year.

“There has been a steady decline,” Naperville Sgt. Gregg Bell said.

But Bell and other law enforcement officials say there are a variety of reasons the overall ticket count has dropped. One is that departments don’t have the same level of staffing that they did several years ago.

Many departments have changed priorities due to budget constraints, including the dismantling of traffic enforcement units:

Addison police had a five-person traffic unit in 2009, when the department issued 5,183 tickets and 3,447 warnings, officials said. But because of a hiring freeze, the unit dedicated to traffic enforcement had to be reduced — and eventually disbanded — to help ensure the department had enough officers to respond to calls…

Illinois State Police say they also have been forced to do more with less because of a steady attrition rate. That’s part of the reason why troopers are issuing fewer tickets…

Carol Stream Sgt. Brian M. Cooper agrees that the struggling economy has resulted in fewer vehicles on the road. He also believes the village’s reputation for strict traffic enforcement, especially along North Avenue, is influencing motorists…

Some police departments, including Lombard and Wheaton, say their ticket numbers fell at a time when they were directing officers to focus on other enforcement activities.

Wheaton, for example, last year stepped up its efforts to prevent burglaries.

What does this mean for the driver who gets a ticket and a court date as opposed to a warning?

Do the math. If there are fewer tickets issued and a need for revenue, the prosecution would be expected to pursue violators more aggressively in court to collect revenue.