{
  "id": 2616940,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZDZISLAW KUBICA, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Kubica",
  "decision_date": "1989-03-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 1\u201487\u20141849",
  "first_page": "341",
  "last_page": "344",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "180 Ill. App. 3d 341"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "521 N.E.2d 884",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "886"
        },
        {
          "page": "888-89"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 Ill. 2d 50",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5549752
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "54"
        },
        {
          "page": "59"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/122/0050-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "469 N.E.2d 314",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "316"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ill. App. 3d 572",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3562772
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "574"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/127/0572-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 333,
    "char_count": 5502,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.769,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08277142798672818
    },
    "sha256": "53c4b9d7df66c30b62b180360f4ed62292c85c884e6819fe958d4283a929de15",
    "simhash": "1:182883dfbd7fdcb2",
    "word_count": 896
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:06:12.370658+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZDZISLAW KUBICA, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE RIZZI\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe State of Illinois appeals an order of the circuit court of Cook County which rescinded the statutory summary suspension of defendant Zdzislaw Kubica\u2019s driving privileges. On appeal, the State argues that rescission of defendant\u2019s statutory summary suspension was not warranted under the circumstances. We reverse and remand.\nOn November 26, 1986, defendant was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. When the police stopped defendant, he was asked to submit to a sobriety test. Defendant refused the test. When defendant refused the test, his driving privileges were summarily suspended pursuant to section 11 \u2014 501.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 95V2, par. 11 \u2014 501.1).\nThe arresting officer completed a law enforcement sworn report (Report) wherein he identified the reason for the suspension as well as the reasonable grounds upon which he believed defendant had violated section 11 \u2014 501. The officer signed the Report, wrote his star number on the Report and gave a copy to defendant.\nOn January 5, 1987, defendant petitioned the court to rescind the statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges. Pursuant to the statute, an implied consent hearing was scheduled. At the hearing, defendant moved to dismiss, claiming that the Report was not sworn to under oath by the arresting officer. The trial court then rescinded the suspension of defendant\u2019s driving privileges based upon its decision that the arresting officer\u2019s signature on the Report was illegible. This appeal followed.\nWe initially note that a hearing on rescission of the statutory summary suspension of one\u2019s driving privileges is a civil proceeding separate and distinct from a criminal prosecution for driving under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, the State has the right to appeal an adverse ruling such as the one here before this court. People v. Porretta (1984), 127 Ill. App. 3d 572, 574, 469 N.E.2d 314, 316.\nSection 2 \u2014 118.1, which authorizes implied consent hearings, reads in part:\n\u201cThe scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issues of:\n1. Whether the person was placed under arrest for an offense as defined in Section 11 \u2014 501, or a similar provision of a local ordinance, as evidenced by the issuance of a Uniform Traffic Ticket; and\n2. Whether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that such person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway while under the influence of alcohol, other drug, or combination thereof; and\n3. Whether such person, after being advised by the arresting officer that the privilege to operate a motor vehicle would be suspended if the person refused to submit to and complete the test or tests, did refuse to submit to or complete such test or tests to determine the person\u2019s alcohol or drug concentration; or\n4. Whether the person, after being advised by the arresting officer that the privilege to operate a motor vehicle would be suspended if the person submits to a chemical test, or tests, and such test discloses an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more, and such person did submit to and complete such test or tests which determined an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, eh. 95V2, par. 2 \u2014 118.1.\nThe State thus argues that the trial court\u2019s order rescinding the statutory summary suspension of defendant\u2019s driving privileges was in error because it resulted from the trial court\u2019s finding that the police officer\u2019s signature on the Report was illegible, an issue improperly raised at the implied consent hearing.\nThe issue raised in this appeal by the State was addressed in the recent decision of People v. Badoud (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 50, 521 N.E.2d 884. In Badoud, the Illinois Supreme Court equated a sworn report in a summary suspension hearing with a complaint in an ordinary civil proceeding. A hearing under section 2 \u2014 118.1 is to proceed in the same manner as a hearing in any other civil proceeding. Thus, the supreme court concluded that the trial court can, in a section 2\u2014 118.1 hearing, consider whether an officer\u2019s report is sworn. (122 Ill. 2d at 54, 521 N.E.2d at 886.) The court went on to hold that, in light of legislative intent and the seriousness of the public hazard that summary suspension legislation addresses, \u201cthe General Assembly intended an officer\u2019s good-faith failure to initially swear to the report to be curable.\u201d 122 Ill. 2d at 59, 521 N.E.2d at 888-89.\nIn the instant case, defendant\u2019s summary suspension was rescinded because the officer\u2019s handwriting was found illegible by the court. In light of the holding in Badoud, we find that the trial court erred in not allowing the State to cure any defect in the Report caused by its determination that the officer\u2019s handwriting was illegible.\nAccordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed, and this cause is remanded with directions that the suspension of defendant\u2019s driving privileges be reinstated and a hearing be held consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nFREEMAN, P.J., and WHITE, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE RIZZI"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Kenneth T. McCurry, Paula Carstensen, and Nancy Nolan Colletti, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.",
      "No brief filed for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZDZISLAW KUBICA, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1\u201487\u20141849\nOpinion filed March 1, 1989.\nRichard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Kenneth T. McCurry, Paula Carstensen, and Nancy Nolan Colletti, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.\nNo brief filed for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0341-01",
  "first_page_order": 363,
  "last_page_order": 366
}