{
  "id": 8498627,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRAIG J. ZNANIECKI, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Znaniecki",
  "decision_date": "1989-04-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201488\u20140474",
  "first_page": "389",
  "last_page": "392",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "181 Ill. App. 3d 389"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "373 N.E.2d 1332",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. 2d 13",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5448551
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/71/0013-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 5302,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.757,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6734195030166458e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6963153064136172
    },
    "sha256": "ac3d76d6ba1fac239863919e2dfd60a88f54846473d3dc42784229802975b94f",
    "simhash": "1:150283971b6e94b7",
    "word_count": 873
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:30:31.344826+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "STOUDER and SCOTT, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRAIG J. ZNANIECKI, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE WOMBACHER\ndelivered the opinion of the court;\nThe defendant appeals the trial court\u2019s denial of his petition to rescind his summary suspension.\nOn May 7, 1988, the defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and notified of the statutory suspension of his driving privileges. He petitioned the trial court to rescind the statutory summary suspension.\nThe arresting officer, Bouxsein, stated that the vehicle driven by the defendant ran into a tree. There were two other passengers in the defendant\u2019s vehicle as well as a cooler containing five empty beer cans.\nAt the hospital, the defendant admitted to earlier drinking beer. The officer noted the defendant\u2019s speech was coherent and he responded to questions appropriately; nevertheless, he smelled of alcohol. After requesting blood from the defendant, Bouxsein arrested the defendant for DUI. He read the defendant his rights from a card entitled \u201cImplied Consent Warnings.\u201d This card was admitted as an exhibit during this hearing. The defendant indicated he understood the warnings.\nFollowing this hearing, the trial judge denied the defendant\u2019s petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension and this appeal follows.\nThe defendant claims he was not properly warned by the arresting officer of the resulting consequences if he submitted to a blood test which revealed an alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10 or greater. We agree and reverse the statutory summary suspension.\nAccording to the Illinois Vehicle Code, a rudimentary issue at a summary suspension hearing is whether the defendant was properly advised by the arresting officer that his privilege to operate a motor vehicle would be suspended if he refused to submit to and complete the test or tests requested or he submitted to a chemical test or tests, and such tests disclosed a BAC of 0.10 or more. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 951/2, par. 2 \u2014 118.1.\nSection 11 \u2014 501.1(c) of the Illinois Vehicle Code provides in relevant part as follows:\n\u201cA person requested to submit to a test *** shall be warned by the law enforcement officer requesting the test that a refusal to submit to the test will result in the statutory summary suspension of such person\u2019s privilege to operate a motor vehicle as provided in Section 6 \u2014 208.1 of this Code. The person shall also be warned by the law enforcement officer that if the person submits to the test or tests *** and the alcohol concentration in such person\u2019s blood or breath is 0.10 or greater, a statutory summary suspension of such person\u2019s privilege to operate a motor vehicle, as provided in Sections 6 \u2014 208.1 and 11 \u2014 501.1 of this Code, will be imposed.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95V2, par. ll-501.1(c).\nThe requirement that a person be warned under section 11\u2014 501.1(c) of the Vehicle Code is a mandatory one as is evidenced by the word \u201cshall.\u201d Courts generally hold that the word \u201cshall\u201d is mandatory. Andrews v. Foxworthy (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 13, 373 N.E.2d 1332.\nIn this case, the arresting officer failed to warn the defendant that if he submitted to the blood test, and it revealed an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more, a statutory summary suspension of his privilege to operate a motor vehicle would issue. The arresting officer testified that he read the defendant the standard implied consent warnings contained on the card he was issued by his department. The warning by the arresting officer read as follows:\n\u201cA refusal to submit to the test will result in suspension of a person\u2019s license to operate a motor vehicle for six months for the first such arrest and refusal and suspension for twelve months for the second and each subsequent such arrest and refusal within 5 years.\u201d\nThe evidence shows the defendant received a warning of the resulting consequences in the event he refused to submit to the blood test; however, the evidence does not show the defendant was warned of the resulting consequences if he submitted to the blood test and it disclosed a BAC of 0.10 or greater. Therefore, the warning provided the defendant was incomplete according to section 11 \u2014 501.1(c) of the Vehicle Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 951/2, par. 11 \u2014 501.1(c).) The absence of this warning of the resulting consequences did not permit or allow the defendant to make an intelligent, knowing, and informed decision in this cause.\nIn order to properly warn a defendant who is arrested for DUI, he must be completely informed, meaning he should be warned of the consequences of his refusal to submit to the test or tests requested as well as the consequences of submitting to the test or tests requested which disclose a BAC of 0.10 or greater.\nBased on the foregoing, the decision of the circuit court of Putnam County denying defendant\u2019s petition to rescind the summary suspension of his driving privileges is hereby reversed.\nReversed.\nSTOUDER and SCOTT, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE WOMBACHER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Louis E. Olivero & Associates, of Peru (Douglas Olivero, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Norman K. Rafferty, State\u2019s Attorney, of Hennepin (Walter P. Hehner, 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. CRAIG J. ZNANIECKI, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201488\u20140474\nOpinion filed April 5, 1989.\nLouis E. Olivero & Associates, of Peru (Douglas Olivero, of counsel), for appellant.\nNorman K. Rafferty, State\u2019s Attorney, of Hennepin (Walter P. Hehner, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0389-01",
  "first_page_order": 411,
  "last_page_order": 414
}