{
  "id": 3614532,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BARRY D. BATES, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Bates",
  "decision_date": "1987-11-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 4-87-0349",
  "first_page": "80",
  "last_page": "82",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "165 Ill. App. 3d 80"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "426 N.E.2d 824",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 Ill. 2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5469983
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/86/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.E.2d 58",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 Ill. App. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5034218
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/333/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 Ill. 2d 153",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3188399
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/118/0153-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 S.E.2d 93",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 N.C. App. 363",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552283
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/39/0363-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "547 P.2d 293",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Wash. App. 115",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        1776231
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash-app/15/0115-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "450 N.E.2d 459",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 Ill. App. 3d 302",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3556725
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/115/0302-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "494 N.E.2d 933",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 Ill. App. 3d 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3499202
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/144/0400-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "505 N.E.2d 96",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 Ill. App. 3d 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3609431
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/153/0292-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 386,
    "char_count": 5226,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.78,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.443137112403286e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8032582208460802
    },
    "sha256": "3ec7fc71578e08b6dc6dea7b362999dd3a55c45252b30e7823a4835a4b73f0fe",
    "simhash": "1:a9af1f9740ce8e85",
    "word_count": 841
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:33.943810+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. BARRY D. BATES, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE GREEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe Secretary of State summarily suspended the driver\u2019s license of defendant, Barry D. Bates. On March 31, 1987, defendant filed a petition in the circuit court of Vermilion County seeking to rescind the suspension of his license. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court entered an order on May 11, 1987, denying the petition. Defendant now appeals from that decision. We affirm.\nSection 11\u2014501.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code provides \u201cthat a refusal to submit to [a breathalyzer] test will result in the statutory summary suspension of such person\u2019s privilege to operate a motor vehicle.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 951/2, par. 11\u2014501.1.) Upon suspension, section 2\u2014118.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code grants a driver whose driving privileges have been summarily suspended the opportunity for a hearing to determine whether grounds for a continuation of the suspension exists. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 951/2, par. 2\u2014118.1.\nThe evidence at the hearing in this matter revealed that on March 22, 1987, an Illinois State trooper arrested defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol. The trooper then took him to the Danville Public Safety Building, where he agreed to undergo a breathalyzer test.\nAs disclosed by the testimony, the trooper then instructed defendant on how to properly use the breathalyzer machine. He attempted several times to take the test. However, on each attempt, defendant failed to provide a sufficient amount of air so that the machine could produce an accurate reading. Although the trooper testified that defendant appeared to be blowing, he stated the machine at no point during the testing emitted a six-second tone to indicate the test had been successfully completed. The trooper also said the machine ejected a printout which showed a blood-alcohol level of .17 but was labelled \u201cdeficient sample.\u201d\nThe thrust of defendant\u2019s testimony was that he tried very hard to follow the officer\u2019s instructions and blow as hard as he could into the tube.\nDefendant\u2019s main issue on appeal is whether the evidence presented at the circuit court hearing sufficiently established that he refused the breathalyzer test. More specifically, he questions the ability of a machine to measure compliance, in general, and the condition of the machine which tested him, in particular.\nThe scope of a hearing held pursuant to section 2 \u2014 118.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code noted previously is limited. However, one potential issue for the court is that raised here: namely, whether the alleged driver refused to take or complete a test to determine alcohol concentration. At such hearing, the driver bears both the burden of proof and the burden to proceed. People v. Blythe (1987), 153 Ill. App. 3d 292, 505 N.E.2d 96.\nHere, the evidence presented at the hearing established that defendant verbally agreed to take the test. Nonverbal conduct following consent can be tantamount to a refusal to undergo testing, however. (People v. Doherty (1986), 144 Ill. App. 3d 400, 494 N.E.2d 933; People v. Schuberth (1983), 115 Ill. App. 3d 302, 450 N.E.2d 459.) As long as the machine is in proper working condition, and a defendant is physically capable of taking the test, his failure to provide the breathalyzer machine with an adequate air sample has been ' treated as a sufficient basis for a determination that a defendant refused- to take the test. Woolman v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1976), 15 Wash. App. 115, 547 P.2d 293; Poag v. Powell (1979), 39 N.C. App. 363, 250 S.E.2d 93.\nThe condition of the breathalyzer machine was not an issue raised by the defendant at the summary suspension hearing here, but it could have been. (See People v. Hamilton (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 153.) Even so, none of the evidence indicated it was malfunctioning. In fact, results of earlier certification testing showed no deviations from standards as set out by the Illinois Department of Public Health. When the existence of a condition is in question, prior existence of that condition indicates a probability of its continuation at a later time. Petersen v. General Rug & Carpet Cleaners, Inc. (1947), 333 Ill. App. 47, 77 N.E.2d 58.\nUnder the applicable authority, we conclude that under the foregoing evidence the circuit court\u2019s determination that defendant failed to successfully complete the breathalyzer test was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Village of Wilsonville v. SCA Services, Inc. (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 1, 426 N.E.2d 824.) Despite the trooper\u2019s testimony that this particular defendant appeared to be blowing into the machine, we recognize feigning compliance would not be difficult.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSPITZ, P.J., and KNECHT, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE GREEN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gary J. Stokes, of Georgetown, for appellant.",
      "Craig H. DeArmond, State\u2019s Attorney, of Danville (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Gwendolyn W. Klingler, 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. BARRY D. BATES, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201487\u20140349\nOpinion filed November 19, 1987.\n\u2014 Rehearing denied February 22, 1988.\nGary J. Stokes, of Georgetown, for appellant.\nCraig H. DeArmond, State\u2019s Attorney, of Danville (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Gwendolyn W. Klingler, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0080-01",
  "first_page_order": 102,
  "last_page_order": 104
}