{
  "id": 8498694,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIAN W. EBERHARDT, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Eberhardt",
  "decision_date": "1985-11-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201484\u20140827",
  "first_page": "148",
  "last_page": "150",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "138 Ill. App. 3d 148"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "451 N.E.2d 28",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 Ill. App. 3d 987",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3557996
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/115/0987-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 302,
    "char_count": 4948,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.76,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.443137112403286e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8032553249243489
    },
    "sha256": "73409384daef4abe6a678886d494573ed8d547a487af7953ef1ff09ea249f2bf",
    "simhash": "1:beab2bcbba7aebe2",
    "word_count": 792
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:50.288778+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BARRY and WOMBACHER, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIAN W. EBERHARDT, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HEIPLE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant is a resident of Texas. He had once resided in Illinois, but moved to Texas in 1982. Thereafter, he allowed his Illinois license to expire and acquired a Texas driver\u2019s license in its place. While visiting Illinois in 1984, he was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was duly notified that his Illinois driver\u2019s license, which had expired in 1982, was revoked under section 6 \u2014 205 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (111. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 95x/2, par. 6 \u2014 205). However, he still possessed a valid Texas license. The record indicates that the Secretary of State did not comply with section 6 \u2014 202(c) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (111. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 95x/2, par. 6 \u2014 202(c)) by failing to report defendant\u2019s conviction to the Texas authorities.\nThe instant case arose when defendant, on a later visit to Illinois, was arrested for driving while license revoked (111. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 951/2, par. 6 \u2014 303). The trial court entered a conviction and sentenced defendant to seven days\u2019 imprisonment.\nDefendant\u2019s argument on appeal is straightforward. A necessary element of his conviction was an actual revocation. Because the State of Illinois did not comply with the mandatory notification requirements of section 6 \u2014 202(c), a valid revocation did not occur.\nSection 6 \u2014 202(c) reads as follows:\n\u201cWhen a nonresident\u2019s operation privilege is suspended or revoked, the Secretary of State shall forward a certified copy of such action to the motor vehicle administrator in the State where such person resides. \u201d\nOur resolution of the case requires more than an analysis of 6\u2014 202(c). The State has tried to characterize what occurred here as a revocation of a nonresident\u2019s Illinois driving privileges under section 6 \u2014 303. If that were the only event of significance here, we would tend- to agree that 6 \u2014 202(c) could not save defendant. But there is more here than meets the eye.\nThe starting point is the charging instrument, which in this case is the traffic ticket. The ticket reflects information concerning the expired Illinois license only. Defendant was charged with \u201cDriving while license revoked.\u201d Turning to the notice of revocation, defendant was informed that his license, permit or privilege was revoked pursuant to section 6 \u2014 205(a)(2) of the Illinois Vehicle Code. Section 6 \u2014 205, however, only authorizes revocation of licenses or permits, not privileges. Thus, the relevant documents and statutes show only an intention to revoke defendant\u2019s expired Illinois license and to prosecute based on driving while this license was revoked.\nLurking in the background is the small matter of defendant\u2019s Texas license. Sometime following receipt of the revocation notice, defendant inquired of the Texas authorities concerning the status of his Texas license. To their knowledge it was valid. This is where the State\u2019s version of the case is thoroughly impeached. Had Illinois been interested in revoking defendant\u2019s Illinois driving privilege, it would have followed through and informed Texas of the revocation. It is apparent from all of the relevant data that this was not what the State did. All it did was to revoke the previously expired Illinois license. Because neither the Texas license nor defendant\u2019s privilege thereunder to drive as a nonresident in Illinois (111. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 951/2, par. 6 \u2014 102(2)) were affected by the revocation of the previously expired Illinois license, defendant had a perfect right to drive in Illinois.\nTo dispense with a loophole, it is true that defendant was technically convictable because the expired license was validly revoked and defendant was operating a motor vehicle on the Illinois highways. (People v. Johnson (1983), 115 Ill. App. 3d 987, 451 N.E.2d 28.) However, it is apparent that the right to drive as a nonresident is inherently at odds with the technical elements of driving while license revoked. This is where the notification requirement of 6 \u2014 202(c) becomes critical. The State knew at all times relevant to this case that defendant had a valid Texas license. By failing to either properly take action against defendant\u2019s nonresident driving privilege or to notify Texas of defendant\u2019s conviction, the State invited the defendant\u2019s conduct and abandoned any right to claim that he could not operate as a nonresident under a valid foreign license. Accordingly, defendant\u2019s conviction for driving while license revoked is reversed.\nReversed.\nBARRY and WOMBACHER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HEIPLE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Agostinelli and Stephen Omolecki, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "John X. Breslin and Raymond L. Beck, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of Ottawa, for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIAN W. EBERHARDT, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201484\u20140827\nOpinion filed November 20, 1985.\nRobert Agostinelli and Stephen Omolecki, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nJohn X. Breslin and Raymond L. Beck, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of Ottawa, for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0148-01",
  "first_page_order": 170,
  "last_page_order": 172
}