{ "id": 3604812, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. BRIAN RAY BYWATER, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Bywater", "decision_date": "2006-12-21", "docket_number": "No. 101016", "first_page": "477", "last_page": "494", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "223 Ill. 2d 477" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "215 Ill. 2d 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4059834 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "315-16" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/215/0308-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 Ill. 2d 157", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5704419 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "162-63" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/221/0157-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 Ill. 2d 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3192926 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "447" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/119/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 Ill. 2d 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5703823 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "390", "parenthetical": "\"When a term used by the legislature is clear and unambiguous, it is not necessary to resort to other aids of construction\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/221/0381-01" ] }, { "cite": "219 Ill. 2d 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3597995 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "170" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/219/0166-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 Ill. 2d 360", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 780285 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "364-65" }, { "page": "364-65" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/158/0360-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 Ill. 2d 375", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5735943 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "382" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/218/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 Ill. 2d 613", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5704169 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "617" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/221/0613-01" ] }, { "cite": "217 Ill. 2d 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3875619 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "313" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/217/0306-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 Ill. 2d 250", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4820207 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "255" }, { "page": "261" }, { "page": "261" }, { "page": "253" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/154/0250-01" ] }, { "cite": "358 Ill. App. 3d 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5732098 ], "weight": 5, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "198" }, { "page": "198" }, { "page": "198" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/358/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 Ill. 2d 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3228386 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "507" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/128/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "266 Ill. App. 3d 341", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 887218 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "342", "parenthetical": "holding that a defective sworn report may provide a ground for rescission" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/266/0341-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 Ill. 2d 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3121664 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "483", "parenthetical": "noting that when this court has interpreted a statute, that interpretation is considered as part of the statute itself unless and until the legislature amends it contrary to the interpretation" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/98/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 Ill. 2d 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 55988 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "295" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/172/0289-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 Ill. 2d 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4059834 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "315-16" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/215/0308-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 Ill. 2d 250", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4820207 ], "weight": 8, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "258-68" }, { "page": "259, 263" }, { "page": "254" }, { "page": "261" }, { "page": "271", "parenthetical": "Miller, C.J., specially concurring" }, { "page": "268" }, { "page": "261" }, { "page": "268" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/154/0250-01" ] }, { "cite": "358 Ill. App. 3d 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5732098 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "200" }, { "page": "200" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/358/0191-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1085, "char_count": 32311, "ocr_confidence": 0.791, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.189442137285596e-07, "percentile": 0.7736217439704014 }, "sha256": "c4d1c3f68b16f65ec7a9d9fe7215910db2996da7f57d5ec3305bf19f5c9e313a", "simhash": "1:9fb65763e072b722", "word_count": 5490 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:05:23.819019+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. BRIAN RAY BYWATER, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE GARMAN\ndelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.\nChief Justice Thomas and Justices Fitzgerald, Kilbride, and Karmeier concurred in the judgment and opinion.\nJustice Freeman dissented, with opinion, joined by Justice Burke.\nOPINION\nAfter being charged with driving without proof of insurance (625 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 707(a) (West 2002)), improper lane usage (625 ILCS 5/11 \u2014 709(a) (West 2002)), and two counts of driving while under the influence of alcohol (625 ILCS 5/11 \u2014 501(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2002)), defendant Brian R Bywater was notified that statutory summary suspension of his driver\u2019s license would take effect pursuant to the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11 \u2014 501.1 (West 2002)). Defendant contested this summary suspension pursuant to section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) of the Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 118.1(b) (West 2002)). On appeal, he argued that the 30-day time limit for holding a rescission hearing set forth in section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) was not met where, despite timely serving the State with his petition to rescind by mail, the circuit court of Kane County held the hearing on the thirty-fourth day. The appellate court disagreed, holding that section 2 \u2014 118.1(b)\u2019s 30-day deadline does not begin to run until the State\u2019s actual receipt of a petition to rescind. 358 Ill. App. 3d 191, 198. The court further held that in cases where service is effected by mail, section 2 \u2014 118.1(b)\u2019s deadline is extended by four days by application of Supreme Court Rule 12(c) (145 Ill. 2d R. 12(c)). 358 Ill. App. 3d 191.\nWe granted defendant\u2019s petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 315 (177 Ill. 2d R. 315) to consider whether the 30-day time limit for conducting a petition to rescind hearing established by section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) commences on the date of the filing of the petition in the circuit court of venue or is extended by Supreme Court Rule 12(c) to commence running on the date the State receives service. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the decision of the appellate court and remand this cause to the circuit court for entry of an order granting Bywater\u2019s petition to rescind.\nBACKGROUND\nOn June 29, 2002, defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. On that same day, he was notified that statutory summary suspension of his driver\u2019s license would take effect on August 14, 2002, under section 11 \u2014 501.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. On July 11, 2002, defendant filed a petition to rescind the summary suspension with the clerk of the circuit court of Kane County pursuant to section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) of the Vehicle Code, and sent a copy of that filing to the State by first-class mail.\nOn July 18, 2002, both defendant and the State appeared before the circuit court on the State\u2019s motion to set a hearing date on the petition to rescind. At the July 18 appearance, the State argued that because defendant served the State with his petition to rescind by mail, Supreme Court Rule 12(c) applied and the 30-day time limit for conducting a rescission hearing pursuant to section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) did not actually start until July 15, 2002. The circuit court agreed, entering an order continuing the hearing on the petition to rescind to August 14, 2002.\nOn August 14, defendant presented a motion to dismiss the statutory summary suspension arguing that dismissal was appropriate because a hearing was not held within 30 days, as required by section 2 \u2014 118.1(b). The circuit court denied this motion, raising Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court Rule 34.05(b) (16th Jud. Cir. Ct. R. 34.05(b)) sua sponte. The circuit court found rule 34.05(b), which required a defendant to request a hearing on a petition to rescind in open court, controlling and thus the hearing was timely.\nOn appeal, the appellate court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the circuit court still retained jurisdiction over the issues raised in the petition to rescind. See People v. Bywater, No. 2\u201403\u20140514 (2004) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). The appellate court remanded, and on July 7, 2004, the circuit court denied defendant\u2019s renewed motion to dismiss as well as his petition to rescind. The circuit court also denied defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider. Defendant appealed the case a second time.\nIn defendant\u2019s second appeal, the appellate court held Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Rule 34.05(b) invalid. 358 Ill. App. 3d 191. The appellate court went on to find, however, that section 2 \u2014 118.1(b)\u2019s 30-day deadline begins to run when service is effective on the State, which, under Supreme Court Rule 12(c), is four days after mailing. 358 Ill. App. 3d at 198. Pursuant to that finding, the appellate court affirmed defendant\u2019s suspension. 358 Ill. App. 3d at 198.\nBecause the State does not challenge the appellate court\u2019s finding that the local court rule raised by the circuit court was invalid and acknowledges that it conflicted with section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) and established precedent, this court will limit its analysis to the issue of whether the 30-day time limit for conducting a petition-to-rescind hearing established by section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) commences on the date of the filing of the petition in the circuit court of venue or on the date when mailed service is actually effective.\nANALYSIS\nWhile this court has previously addressed section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) in People v. Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d 250 (1993), we have not addressed the precise issue of construction described above. The construction of a statute is a question of law which this court reviews de novo. In re D.S., 217 Ill. 2d 306, 313 (2005). The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. People ex rel. Devine v. Sharkey, 221 Ill. 2d 613, 617 (2006). The best indication of that intent is the language of the statute, given its plain and ordinary meaning. People v. McClure, 218 Ill. 2d 375, 382 (2006). When the language is unambiguous, the statute must be applied as written without resorting to other aids of construction. People v. Fitzpatrick, 158 Ill. 2d 360, 364-65 (1994). A statute must be considered in its entirety, though, keeping in mind the subject it addresses and the legislature\u2019s apparent objective in enacting it. People v. Wooddell, 219 Ill. 2d 166, 170 (2006). With these principles in mind, we turn to the statute at issue here.\nSection 11 \u2014 501.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code requires the Secretary of State to summarily suspend the driver\u2019s license of any motorist who: (1) is arrested for driving under the influence and refuses to submit to testing of his or her blood-alcohol level, (2) tests above the legal limit for alcohol content, or (3) tests positive for an intoxicating substance. 625 ILCS 5/11 \u2014 501.1 (West 2002). The Vehicle Code allows a motorist to challenge the statutory summary suspension, however, through section 2 \u2014 118.1(b). That section provides:\n\u201cWithin 90 days after the notice of statutory summary suspension served under Section 11 \u2014 501.1, the person may make a written request for a judicial hearing in the circuit court of venue. The request to the circuit court shall state the grounds upon which the person seeks to have the statutory summary suspension rescinded. Within 30 days after receipt of the written request or the first appearance date on the Uniform Traffic Ticket issued pursuant to a violation of Section 11 \u2014 501, or a similar provision of a local ordinance, the hearing shall be conducted by the circuit court having jurisdiction. This judicial hearing, request, or process shall not stay or delay the statutory summary suspension. The hearings shall proceed in the court in the same manner as in other civil proceedings.\u201d (Emphases added.) 625 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 118.1(b) (West 2002).\nThough neither party contests that the rules of service must be complied with under section 2 \u2014 118.1(b), the parties do contest when the 30-day time limit set forth above commences.\nThe State argues that the statutory language is ambiguous. Specifically, the State focuses on the language emphasized above in section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) and presents the question of whose receipt of the petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension triggers the 30-day deadline: receipt by the circuit court or receipt by the State. The State urges this court, in light of the structure of the summary suspension statute and the policy behind it, to resolve this purported ambiguity by affirming the appellate court\u2019s conclusion that receipt by the State activates section 2 \u2014 118.1(b)\u2019s 30-day deadline. By that reasoning, the State also contends, as the appellate court found below, that Supreme Court Rule 12(c) applies. Rule 12(c) provides that \u201c[slervice by mail is complete four days after mailing.\u201d 145 Ill. 2d R. 12(c).\nThe State argues that because summary suspension becomes effective on the forty-sixth day after a defendant is notified of it (625 ILCS 5/11 \u2014 501.1(g) (West 2002)), any defendant concerned about obtaining a rescission before the summary suspension takes effect has adequate time to do so, even if the hearing is conducted within 34 rather than 30 days of the petition\u2019s filing. As such, the State contends that the difference between its interpretation of section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) and defendant\u2019s interpretation is not material for due process purposes.\nAdditionally, the State argues that while its review of the Illinois Compiled Statutes uncovered no other provision with language analogous to that disputed here, there are numerous examples of provisions in which a party must take some action within a specified number of days of receipt of some legal notice or document to avoid losing the right to take that action. See, e.g., 205 ILCS 5/48 (West 2002) (the Commissioner of Banks and Real Estate may issue an order of removal of a director, officer, or other agent of a state bank or subsidiary due to circumstances such as violation of the law; the person affected may request a hearing before the state banking board within 10 days of receipt of the Commissioner\u2019s order); 705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 25(8) (West 2002) (if the person affected is not in court when an order of protection regarding a minor is issued, the sheriff or other server must serve the order upon the person, and the person, within seven days of receipt, can file a written motion to modify the order); 820 ILCS 305/19(b) (West 2002) (an arbitrator\u2019s decision in a workers\u2019 compensation case is filed with the Commission, which sends each party a copy, and unless a petition for review is filed by either party within 30 days of receipt, the decision is conclusive). The State points out that in each of these provisions the time deadline is not triggered until the burdened party actually receives some particular notice or document. By analogy, the State contends that because it is the State that has the burden to set a rescission hearing here, so too should the State\u2019s time period within which to complete that duty be triggered only after the State becomes aware of it, namely, the day that service is complete. This cited authority makes evident, though, that when the legislature so desires, it is more than capable of writing into a statute unambiguous language establishing time period provisions expressly beginning upon a burdened party\u2019s receipt. See, e.g., 205 ILCS 5/48(7) (West 2002) (\u201cThe person affected by the action may request a hearing before the State Banking Board within 10 days after receipt of the order\u201d (emphases added)); 705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 25(8) (West 2002) (\u201cThe person against whom the protective order was obtained may seek a modification of the order by filing a written motion to modify the order within 7 days after actual receipt by the person of a copy of the order\u201d (emphasis added)); 820 ILCS 305/19(b) (West 2002) (\u201cUnless a petition for review is filed by either party within 30 days after the receipt by such party of the copy of the decision *** then the decision shall become the decision of the Commission and in the absence of fraud shall be conclusive\u201d (emphasis added)).\nConsidering this, and notwithstanding the State\u2019s other arguments, we agree with defendant\u2019s position. Guided by principles of statutory construction, we find no ambiguity in the language of section 2 \u2014 118.1(b). That language, given its plain and ordinary meaning, does not support the position that the 30-day time period of section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) is triggered by the State\u2019s receipt of service of a defendant\u2019s petition to rescind. Section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) does not mention the State at all, let alone in context of the State\u2019s receipt of a defendant\u2019s petition to rescind. On the contrary, the section repeatedly and consistently refers to the circuit court of venue.\nSection 2 \u2014 118.1(b)\u2019s first sentence describes how a person may make a \u201cwritten request\u201d with \u201cthe circuit court of venue.\u201d The second sentence describes the content of \u201c[t]he request to the circuit court.\u201d The third sentence establishes the time period within which the hearing shall be held by \u201cthe circuit court having jurisdiction\u201d and conditions that time period upon \u201creceipt of the written request.\u201d To read into this statute a requirement that the 30-day time period does not begin to run until the State\u2019s receipt of service would contravene the statute\u2019s plain language and run afoul of the oft-repeated principle of statutory construction that when statutory language is unambiguous it must be applied as written. See People v. Brooks, 221 Ill. 2d 381, 390 (2006) (\u201cWhen a term used by the legislature is clear and unambiguous, it is not necessary to resort to other aids of construction\u201d); Fitzpatrick, 158 Ill. 2d at 364-65; People v. Hare, 119 Ill. 2d 441, 447 (1988).\nFurther, we note that statutory interpretation is not a tool to be utilized by courts attempting to remedy apparent oversights by rewriting statutes in ways that contravene their clear and unambiguous language. See People v. Taylor, 221 Ill. 2d 157, 162-63 (2006). As already described, the legislature could just as easily have provided, as it has in other situations, that the time period within which to take a particular action would not begin to run until the State\u2019s actual receipt of service. The legislature did not take that path here. Instead, the receipt of a petition to rescind contemplated by the language of section 2 \u2014 118.1(b), as written, is the receipt by the circuit court of venue. It is this receipt that commences the running of the 30-day time period delineated in the statute.\nThis finding comports with People v. Schaefer, where this court found that the legislature enacted the summary suspension laws as an appropriate means to deter and remove from the highway drivers who pose a threat to public safety because of their use of alcohol and drugs. People v. Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d 250, 255 (1993), citing Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 95\u00bd, par. 6 \u2014 206.1. We went on to note that this goal must be met while guaranteeing defendants notice and an opportunity to be heard so as to satisfy \u201cthe concern for protection of the substantive and procedural due process rights of motorists as guaranteed by the United States and Illinois Constitutions.\u201d Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d at 261. With that background in mind, we held that section 2 \u2014 118.1(b)\u2019s \u201c30-day statutory period commences on the date of the filing of a proper petition to rescind in the circuit court of venue, with service on the State, in accordance with the rules of this court.\u201d Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d at 261. In this case, we reaffirm that the plain language of section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) establishes a 30-day period within which a hearing on a petition to rescind summary suspension must be held and again hold that this period commences on the date that petition is received by the circuit court of venue.\nIt should be emphasized that a defendant has a duty to properly serve the State with any request to rescind the statutory summary suspension of that defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license under section 2 \u2014 118.1(b). See 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 201(a) (West 2002); 145 Ill. 2d R. 11. As this court stated in People v. Schaefer, a \u201cdefendant\u2019s challenge to the summary suspension of driving privileges must be heard within the statutory 30-day period, unless the delay is occasioned by the defendant \u201d (Emphasis added.) Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d at 253. In this case, though, defendant did not occasion any delay. In fact, defendant properly served the State by expeditiously sending his petition to rescind to the State by first-class mail on the very same day he filed it with the circuit court. This is not a case where a defendant was remiss in effecting service nor does the State contend it as such.\nIn its brief, the State cited this court\u2019s previous decision in People v. Cosenza, 215 Ill. 2d 308 (2005), highlighting a particular provision of that decision where we stated:\n\u201cConstruing section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) in this way champions the interests of both defendants and the State. Defendants retain the right to enforce a timely hearing as contemplated in the statute, and the State is guaranteed at least 30 days to prepare for the hearing once that right is asserted.\u201d Cosenza, 215 Ill. 2d at 315-16.\nThis statement was made in the context of a different question of interpretation. The issue presented in Cosenza was whether a hearing under section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) had to be concluded within 30 days of the filing of a petition to rescind or whether it merely had to be commenced within 30 days. The issue in this case, what triggers the commencement of the 30-day hearing deadline, was not before this court in Cosenza, nor was it contested by the parties in that case. As such, we do not conclude that Cosenza should dictate our decision in the present case.\nCONCLUSION\nBecause Brian Bywater properly filed a written request to rescind the statutory summary suspension of his driver\u2019s license in the circuit court of venue pursuant to section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 118.1(b) (West 2002)), and because he properly and timely served the State with that request, the language of the statute required that his hearing be held in the circuit court of venue within 30 days. Because By-water did not get that hearing within 30 days, this court must reverse the judgment of the appellate court as well as the judgment of the circuit court. Accordingly, this cause is remanded to the circuit court with direction that an order be entered granting By water\u2019s petition to rescind.\nAppellate court judgment reversed; circuit court judgment reversed; cause remanded with direction.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE GARMAN" }, { "text": "JUSTICE FREEMAN,\ndissenting:\nThe court\u2019s opinion states that it reaffirms People v. Schaefer. That is not the case. The court, in fact, reads out from Schaefer the requirement that a petitioner serve the petition on the State. This may be unintentional\u2014 the court offers no explanation for its elimination of the requirement \u2014 but it is certainly what the court\u2019s opinion does. The result is twofold: (i) Schaefer, rather than being reaffirmed, is overruled, and (ii) confusion will almost certainly result in determining exactly when the 30-day clock for rescission hearings begins to run. I therefore dissent.\nIn Schaefer, this court answered a number of questions that had arisen under section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) of the Vehicle Code. The case involved three consolidated appeals, the facts of which provide an insight into the confusion that existed in this area of the law. See Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d at 258-68. Principal among those problems was the question of who shouldered the burden of scheduling the rescission hearing because section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) was silent as to that question. See Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d at 259, 263. Until Schaefer, the appellate court had struggled with the language of the statute with respect to this question and its effect on the 30-day time computation. Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d at 254. This court resolved the issue by holding as follows:\n\u201c[T]he 30-day statutory period commences on the date of the filing of a proper petition to rescind in the circuit court of venue, with service on the State, in accordance with the rules of this court. The burden to set the court hearing date would then shift to the State.\u2019\u2019(Emphases added.) Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d at 261.\nThus, completed service, in accordance with our rules, and the filing of a \u201cproper petition to rescind\u201d would shift the burden to the State to set the rescission hearing and start the 30-day clock under section 2 \u2014 118.1(b). Given Schaefer\u2019s interpretation of the statute, there can be no question service on the State is a crucial part of the 30-day computation in light of the State\u2019s obligation to set the hearing.\nThe notion that completed service is required to start the 30-day clock has never been questioned in the time since Schaefer. Indeed, Justice Miller, writing separately in Schaefer, emphasized this service requirement and specifically agreed with it: \u201cI agree with the majority that the time period provided by the statute begins to run when the driver submits and properly serves a written request for a hearing, in accordance with our rules regarding service.\u201d Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d at 271 (Miller, C.J., specially concurring). Three years later, in People v. Smith, this court reiterated the point by holding that the \u201chearing on a petition to rescind must be held within 30 days of the date of filing the petition in the circuit court with venue, with service on the State.\u201d People v. Smith, 172 Ill. 2d 289, 295 (1996). And just last year, in People v. Cosenza, we repeated the same point: \u201c[T]he time provision set forth in section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) of the Vehicle Code is satisfied when the hearing begins 30 days after receipt of defendant\u2019s written request (and service on the State) unless delay is occasioned by the defendant.\u201d (Emphasis added.) People v. Cosenza, 215 Ill. 2d 308, 315-16 (2005). Since 1993, service on the State is a condition that a petitioner must satisfy in order to trigger the 30-day time period of section 2 \u2014 118.1(b).\nThus, to put an even finer point on it, Schaefer acknowledged that section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) did not itself address anything more than the mere filing of a petition and that its silence on other areas caused confusion in statutory summary suspension proceedings. Among other possible options, the court held that the State must be served with the petition in order to meet its burden\u2014 which Schaefer contemporaneously created \u2014 of setting a timely rescission hearing. To that end, Schaefer referenced Supreme Court Rules ll and 12 with respect to service. Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d at 268. Rule 11 allows for service by four methods, including mail. 145 Ill. 2d R. 11. Rule 12 states that when \u201cservice of a paper is required, proof of service shall be filed with the clerk.\u201d 145 Ill. 2d R. 12(a). Rule 12(c) provides that service by mail \u201cis complete four days after mailing.\u201d 145 Ill. 2d R. 12(c). Because Schaefer holds that the clock does not begin to run until the petition is filed and service is complete, the time-period calculation depends upon the method of service chosen by the petitioner in accordance with our rules. For example, if a petition is filed with the circuit court on November 1 and the proof of service reveals that the State was served personally on that same date, then the 30-day period starts on November 1. If a petition is filed with the circuit court on November 1 and the proof of service reveals that the State was served by mail on that date, then the 30-day period starts on November 5, because service under the rule is effective four days after mailing.\nUnder this court\u2019s construction of section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) in Schaefer and the application of Rules 11 and 12, the resolution of this case is as straightforward as the appellate court found. That court concluded that to ignore the date that service on the State is complete \u201cwould improperly burden the State\u2019s obligation to set a timely hearing date.\u201d 358 Ill. App. 3d at 200. This was especially so, the court noted, in light of the importance the court in Schaefer placed on providing notice to the State as the \u201cnecessary antecedent in setting summary suspension hearings.\u201d 358 Ill. App. 3d at 200, citing Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d at 261. In this case, Brian Bywater elected to serve the State by mail. The petition\u2019s proof of service states that it was mailed on July 11, 2002, the date on which the petition was filed. Service was therefore not complete until July 15, 2002. The hearing, held on August 14, 2002, was, in fact, timely. I would therefore affirm the appellate court based on Schaefer and Supreme Court Rules 11 and 12.\nThe court, however, rejects this approach for several reasons. Initially, the court notes that section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) \u201cdoes not mention the State at all.\u201d 223 Ill. 2d at 485. The court\u2019s point may be true, but it also completely disregards that the key holding of Schaefer was to judicially read into the language of section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) the State\u2019s burden to set a timely hearing. In the 13 years since this court\u2019s decision in Schaefer, the General Assembly has not altered that interpretation by amendment, and the legislature\u2019s inaction must be deemed acquiescence in the holding. See Miller v. Lockett, 98 Ill. 2d 478, 483 (1983) (noting that when this court has interpreted a statute, that interpretation is considered as part of the statute itself unless and until the legislature amends it contrary to the interpretation).\nThe court\u2019s second observation similarly fails. The court states that its decision today is supported by the fact that when the legislature wants to indicate that a time period commences upon receipt of service, it makes that point explicit in the statute, and that was not done in section 2 \u2014 118.1(b). 223 Ill. 2d at 484. Again, that the statute did not contain such language was the point of Schaefer. This court judicially read the service requirement into the statute as a counterpart to the determination that it was the State that had the burden to timely set the rescission hearing. And like the State\u2019s burden to set the hearing, the General Assembly has not altered, by amendment, the requirement that a petitioner serve the State.\nIf the court today means to disagree with the judicial creation of the burden and service requirements in Schaefer, this would be a different dissent, because I agree with the approach fashioned in Schaefer, which was a unanimous opinion on these points. But that is not what I understand the court\u2019s position to be. The court purports to reaffirm Schaefer, while in the same breath, entirely ignoring Schaefer\u2019s service requirement. The court\u2019s resolution of this case does not \u201ccomport\u201d with the holding in Schaefer (223 Ill. 2d at 486) but, rather, eviscerates it. Today\u2019s opinion serves to hold the State to the obligation Schaefer imposed upon it while at the same time excusing petitioners from the very requirement that was designed by the court to go hand-in-hand with that obligation.\nAt the outset of this dissent, I stated that today\u2019s opinion will cause confusion to those who practice in this area of the law. That is because, toward the end of its opinion, the court \u201cemphasize[s]\u201d that \u201ca defendant has a duty to properly serve the State with any request to - rescind the statutory summary suspension of that defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license under section 2 \u2014 118.1(b).\u201d 223 Ill. 2d at 486. The court\u2019s emphasis is rather meaningless because, up until that point in its opinion, the court has done nothing but stress that the key point, under the statute, is the date of filing. For this reason, I do not know what to make of the court\u2019s language about service. It made sense, of course, in Schaefer, for the court to emphasize the need for service because of the nature of the court\u2019s holding. After all, Schaefer created an unusual situation in that the petitioner\u2019s taking of an action, i.e., the filing of the petition to rescind, created, under the statute, an affirmative obligation on the part of the State to do something, i.e., set a rescission hearing within a 30-day period. Because the court in Schaefer chose to place that affirmative duty on the State, it was not only fair, but logical, that the petitioner must also serve the State in accordance with our rules of service. To hold otherwise would have unfairly started the 30-day clock against the State without first ensuring that the State had been legally apprised of the fact that its obligation to so act had been triggered by the petitioner. Today\u2019s opinion divorces the petitioner\u2019s service requirement from the State\u2019s obligation to set the hearing. Because of this, I believe the opinion will cause undue confusion in our trial courts when both judges and practitioners try to reconcile the notion of \u201cproper service\u201d in this context. I therefore dissent.\nJUSTICE BURKE joins in this dissent.\nSchaefer did not further define what constitutes a \u201cproper\u201d petition. There can be no doubt that a \u201cproper\u201d petition is one that raises a statutory (625 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 118.1(b)(2) (West 2002)) or other ground for rescission. See, e.g., People v. Palacios, 266 Ill. App. 3d 341, 342 (1994) (holding that a defective sworn report may provide a ground for rescission). Closer to this case, this court, in Schaefer, indicated that a petition that did not include a certificate of service \u201cestablishing that the petition had been served on the State in accordance with Supreme Court Rules 11 and 12\u201d could not serve to trigger the 30-day time period contained in section 2 \u2014 118.1(b). Schaefer, 154 Ill. 2d at 268.\nRule 11 addresses the manner of serving papers other than process and complaint on parties not in default in the trial and reviewing court. 145 Ill. 2d R. 11. This rule should not be confused with section 2 \u2014 201(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 201(a) (West 2002)), which provides that every action shall be commenced by the filing of a complaint with service according to the rules. The court cites section 2 \u2014 201(a) in its discussion of the petitioner\u2019s duty to serve. 223 Ill. 2d at 486. If the court means to suggest section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) contemplates that the petition to rescind acts as the equivalent of a complaint that commences the statutory summary suspension action, it is mistaken. In People v. McClain, this court held that it is the officer\u2019s sworn report which functions as the complaint in statutory summary suspension proceedings. People v. McClain, 128 Ill. 2d 500, 507 (1989). Thus, if anything might be considered a \u201ccomplaint\u201d in this context, it is certainly not the petition to rescind. In my view, much of the confusion wrought to this area of the law stems from analogizing the proceedings under the statute to ordinary civil actions in all instances. It would be more accurate to recognize that rescission hearings under section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) are noncriminal, statutory proceedings that are informed by the rules of civil practice, to the extent that those rules are applicable.\nRule 11(b) also allows for (i) service on the party or the party\u2019s attorney personally, (ii) service by leaving the papers with certain other persons, and (iii) service by facsimile transmittal to the office of the party or the party\u2019s attorney if that party has consented to receive service by facsimile transmission. 145 Ill. 2d R. 11(b).\nOf course, under Rule 12(c), the clock may begin to run even though the State may not have actually received the petition. For example, if a petition is mailed November 1, Rule 12(c) renders service \u201ccomplete\u201d on November 5 notwithstanding the actual date of receipt, which may in fact be later. Rule 12(c) was designed to establish a bright-line rule to account for delays in mailing. See 145 Ill. 2d R. 12, Committee Comments.", "type": "dissent", "author": "JUSTICE FREEMAN," } ], "attorneys": [ "Rachel J. Hess, of the Van Der Snick Law Firm, Ltd., of Geneva, and Randy K. Johnson, of Ariano, Hardy, Nyuli, Johnson, Richmond & Goettel, EC., of Elgin, for appellant.", "Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago, and John A. Barsanti, State\u2019s Attorney, of St. Charles (Gary Feinerman, Solicitor General, and Leah C. Myers, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 101016.\nTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. BRIAN RAY BYWATER, Appellant.\nOpinion filed December 21, 2006.\nRachel J. Hess, of the Van Der Snick Law Firm, Ltd., of Geneva, and Randy K. Johnson, of Ariano, Hardy, Nyuli, Johnson, Richmond & Goettel, EC., of Elgin, for appellant.\nLisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago, and John A. Barsanti, State\u2019s Attorney, of St. Charles (Gary Feinerman, Solicitor General, and Leah C. Myers, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0477-01", "first_page_order": 495, "last_page_order": 512 }