{
  "id": 3539232,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD NEVILLE, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Neville",
  "decision_date": "1987-01-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 3-86-0386",
  "first_page": "679",
  "last_page": "682",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "151 Ill. App. 3d 679"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 337,
    "char_count": 5653,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.765,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.094579909334874e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5665222180907072
    },
    "sha256": "c972c981dbf2d298a83a7f6c421e45f99111864ce78fe25e6df8ac3b4f26e061",
    "simhash": "1:3900bcaf31f90c16",
    "word_count": 896
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:10.892091+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD NEVILLE, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Donald Neville, was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 95V2, par. 11 \u2014 501.) As a result, his driver\u2019s license was summarily suspended. The trial court subsequently denied his petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension. The defendant appeals. We affirm.\nOn March 14, 1986, Officer Doug Hayse stopped the defendant for speeding. Following the defendant\u2019s poor performance on several field sobriety tests, the officer took him to the police station for a breathalyzer test. The defendant registered over .10 on the breathalyzer test administered by Morris police chief Alan Love. He was served with immediate notice of summary suspension of his driving privileges.\nThe defendant then filed a petition for rescission of summary suspension and delivered subpoena for Chief Love and Officer Hayse to the dispatcher on duty at the Morris police department. Officer Hayse appeared at the hearing on the petition to rescind. Chief Love did not appear. The Morris police department returned Chief Love\u2019s subpoena, along with the check for subpoena fees.\nAt the hearing on his petition, the defendant asked the court to treat Chief Love\u2019s failure to appear the same as it would treat the failure of a complaining witness to appear and to automatically grant the petition to rescind. The State argued that the defendant was required to personally serve Chief Love with a subpoena. As the defendant failed to do so, it contended, he could not complain when Chief Love did not receive the subpoena and appear. The trial court agreed with the State.\nThe court then gave the defendant the choice of proceeding with a hearing on his petition or continuing the hearing until a date when Chief Love was available. Because his suspension started that day, the defendant chose to proceed with the hearing.\nFollowing the hearing, at which Officer Hayse and the defendant testified, the court denied the defendant\u2019s petition. In doing so, it found that the defendant had not met his burden of proving his assertion that Chief Love had not observed him continuously for 20 minutes prior to administering the breathalyzer test. A 20-minute observation period is required by Rule 510.60(a) of the Department of Public Health standards for administering breathalyzer tests.\nOn appeal, the defendant first argues that the trial court erred in finding that Chief Love had not been properly served with a subpoena. We find it unnecessary to reach this issue due to our decision on the second issue raised on appeal by the defendant.\nThe defendant\u2019s second argument is that the trial court\u2019s finding that Chief Love observed the defendant continuously for 20 minutes prior to administering the breathalyzer test was against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nFor chemical analysis of a person\u2019s breath to be valid under the Illinois Vehicle Code, it shall be performed according to standards promulgated by the Department of Health. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 95x/2, par. 11 \u2014 501.2.) Rule 510.60(a) of the Department of Public Health standards for testing breath for alcohol requires \u201ccontinuous observation of the subject for at least twenty (20) minutes prior to collection of the breath specimen, during which period the subject must not have ingested alcohol, food, drink, regurgitated, vomited or smoked.\u201d Standards and Procedures for Testing of Breath, Blood and Urine for Alcohol and/or Other Drugs, 77 Ill. Admin. Code 510.60(a) (1986).\nIn the instant case, Officer Hayse\u2019s testimony establishes that he observed the defendant continuously for over 20 minutes prior to and up through his taking the breathalyzer test. The officer testified that during that time the defendant did not smoke, drink, vomit, or regurgitate. Further, the defendant does not claim that he ingested alcohol, food, drink, regurgitated, vomited, or smoked during the 20-minute period prior to the test.\nThe defendant argues by implication that the 20-minute observation period may be satisfied only by the person who administers the test. The State argues that the 20-minute period may be comprised of the aggregate observations of the arresting officer and the testing officer.\nIngesting alcohol or food, drinking, regurgitating, vomiting, or smoking within 20 minutes before taking a breathalyzer test can cause an inaccurate blood-alcohol content reading. Rule 510.60(a) is intended to guard against such results. Nothing in the rule requires that the person administering the test continuously observe the subject. Further, we can think of no persuasive reason why the aggregated observations of the arresting officer and testing officer could not satisfy the purpose of the rule. Accordingly, we find that even if Chief Love did not observe the defendant for the 20-minute period, the Rule 510.60(a) requirement was met. It is therefore unnecessary to determine whether Chief Love was properly served because it is clear from the defendant\u2019s statements in court and in his brief that the only reason he sought Chief Love\u2019s presence was to contest his compliance with Rule 510.60(a).\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Grundy County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSCOTT and WOMBACHER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE STOUDER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David W. Neal, of Neal, Cortina & Associates, of Coal City, for appellant.",
      "Charles R. Zalar, State\u2019s Attorney, of Morris (Gerald P. Ursini, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD NEVILLE, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3-86-0386\nOpinion filed January 14, 1987.\nDavid W. Neal, of Neal, Cortina & Associates, of Coal City, for appellant.\nCharles R. Zalar, State\u2019s Attorney, of Morris (Gerald P. Ursini, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0679-01",
  "first_page_order": 701,
  "last_page_order": 704
}