{ "id": 3467475, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICKY JAME S PERILLO, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Perillo", "decision_date": "1987-09-29", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201487\u20140255", "first_page": "314", "last_page": "317", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "161 Ill. App. 3d 314" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "433 N.E.2d 267", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "269" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "89 Ill. 2d 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5494560 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "311" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/89/0308-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 S. Ct. 3511", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 L. Ed. 2d 820", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "467 U.S. 1241", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6317123, 6316644, 6315974, 6318026, 6318540, 6316916, 6318292, 6317334, 6316245, 6318778, 6317563, 6316477 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/467/1241-06", "/us/467/1241-04", "/us/467/1241-01", "/us/467/1241-09", "/us/467/1241-11", "/us/467/1241-05", "/us/467/1241-10", "/us/467/1241-07", "/us/467/1241-02", "/us/467/1241-12", "/us/467/1241-08", "/us/467/1241-03" ] }, { "cite": "451 N.E.2d 831", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "833" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 Ill. 2d 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3115459 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "449" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/96/0444-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 353, "char_count": 5467, "ocr_confidence": 0.772, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.09656006971835038 }, "sha256": "002f0b669e84ecb948e00b0b2ad0710b3ededf378e61bb82a11f292d99e1cee1", "simhash": "1:3196eeab208758e2", "word_count": 890 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:58.396413+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. RICKY JAME S PERILLO, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE LUND\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant Ricky Perillo\u2019s driving privileges were suspended pursuant to sections 2 \u2014 118.1, 6 \u2014 208.1, and 11 \u2014 501.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (the Code) (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1986 Supp., ch. 951/2, pars. 2\u2014 118.1, 6 \u2014 208.1, 11 \u2014 501.1). Defendant filed a petition to rescind the summary suspension. The circuit court of McLean County denied the petition. Defendant appeals. We affirm.\nThe facts were submitted to us by stipulation and are substantially as follows.\nOn February 1, 1987, Normal police officer James Lutes was on routine traffic patrol in Normal, Illinois. At approximately 2:07 a.m., he stopped a motor vehicle driven by defendant and charged him with disobeying a stop sign in violation of section 11 \u2014 1204(b) of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 95V2, par. 11 \u2014 1204(b)).\nDefendant attempted several field sobriety tests at the request of Officer Lutes. Lutes then informed defendant that he was under arrest for the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of section 11 \u2014 501(a)(2) of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1986 Supp., ch. 95x/2, par. 11 \u2014 501(a)(2)). Defendant was transported to the Normal police department.\nAt the police station, Officer Lutes read verbatim to defendant the \u201cWarning to Motorists\u201d prepared by the office of the Illinois Secretary of State. That warning states, in pertinent part:\n\u201cYou are hereby warned and notified that:\n1. Refusal or failure to complete all chemical tests requested will result in suspension of your driving privileges for a minimum of 6 months.\n2. If you submit to the chemical test(s) disclosing an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more, your driving privileges will be suspended for a minimum of 3 months.\n3. If you refuse or fail to complete all chemical tests or if you submit to a test or tests disclosing an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more, and have had a previous conviction or court assigned supervision for driving while under the influence of alcohol, other drug, or combination thereof within the last 5 years, in this or any other state, or received a driver\u2019s license suspension for refusing to submit to chemical testing following an arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol, other drug or combination thereof in Illinois since Jan-nary 1, 1982, or a previous statutory summary suspension except in cases where you submitted to chemical testing resulting in an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more and was subsequently found not guilty; your driving privileges will be suspended for a minimum of 12 months.\u201d\nDefendant then submitted to a breath-alcohol test which disclosed an alcohol concentration greater than .10. He was further charged with driving with a blood-alcohol content greater than .10 in violation of section 11 \u2014 501(a)(1) of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1986 Supp., ch. 951/2, par. 11 \u2014 501(a)(1)). Officer Lutes also served defendant with immediate notice of the summary suspension of his driving privileges. Subsequently, a statutory suspension of three months was imposed by the Secretary of State.\nDefendant filed a petition to have the summary suspension rescinded. The court denied the petition.\nOn appeal, defendant argues the standard \u201cWarning to Motorists\u201d which he received from Officer Lutes is insufficient. Defendant states the warning does not accurately make the distinction between a first offender and a second offender. Therefore, continues defendant, the warning does not fairly apprise the driver of the consequences of submitting to a chemical test as required by section 11 \u2014 501(c) of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1986 Supp., ch. 95^2, par. 11 \u2014 501(c)). The result is apparently detrimental to those who are second offenders, under defendant\u2019s argument.\nDefendant does not state that he is a second offender. The stipulated facts state only that defendant\u2019s license was suspended for three months, the minimum penalty under the statutory suspension scheme. This is also the penalty applied to a first offender. In order for defendant to challenge the propriety of the statutory summary suspension scheme, defendant must show an injury resulting from an unfair application of the procedure. (Accord People v. Holder (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 444, 449, 451 N.E.2d 831, 833, cert. denied (1984), 467 U.S. 1241, 82 L. Ed. 2d 820, 104 S. Ct. 3511; People v. Wagner (1982), 89 Ill. 2d 308, 311, 433 N.E.2d 267, 269.) Defendant has not made such a showing, and he has no standing to challenge the accuracy of the \u201cWarning to Motorists.\u201d\nOur courts are not in the business of answering hypothetical questions. Defendant cannot have his summary suspension rescinded simply because of a technicality that does not apply to him. In saying this, we in no way imply defendant\u2019s argument is meritorious. We merely state that we require defendant to approach this court with the proper standing to seek the relief he requests.\nFor the above reason, the order of the circuit court of McLean . County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSPITZ, P.J., and McCULLOUGH, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE LUND" } ], "attorneys": [ "D. Phillip Anderson, of Normal, for appellant.", "Charles G. Reynard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Kenneth R.", "Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Michael Blazicek, all 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. RICKY JAME S PERILLO, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201487\u20140255\nOpinion filed September 29, 1987.\nD. Phillip Anderson, of Normal, for appellant.\nCharles G. Reynard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Kenneth R.\nBoyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Michael Blazicek, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0314-01", "first_page_order": 336, "last_page_order": 339 }