Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Village of Bloomingdale v. Meline

Village of Bloomingdale v. Meline

Case Date: 12/28/1999
Court: 2nd District Appellate
Docket No: 2-99-0215

Village of Bloomingdale v. Meline, No. 2-99-0215

2nd District, 28 December 1999

THE VILLAGE OF BLOOMINGDALE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAY R. MELINE,

Defendant-Appellant.

 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County.

No. 98--DT--4883

Honorable Nicholas J. Galasso, Judge, Presiding.

JUSTICE RAPP delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Jay R. Meline, appeals from the trial court's order denying his petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension of his driver's license. Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol on December 5, 1998. His license was suspended following a breathalyzer test that revealed a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.15. See 625 ILCS 5/11--501.1, 501.2 (West 1998). On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court's decision to deny his petition was against the manifest weight of the evidence. See People v. Orth, 124 Ill. 2d 326, 341 (1988); People v. Fortney, 297 Ill. App. 3d 79, 88 (1998). We affirm.

In a rescission hearing, the defendant bears the burden of proof, and when he challenges the breathalyzer test result, the defendant must make out a prima facie case that the test is unreliable. If he does so, then the burden shifts to the State to rebut the prima facie case. People v. Graney, 234 Ill. App. 3d 497, 503 (1992). In order to make out a prima facie case, a defendant may present evidence that the breathalyzer test was improperly administered or that there was a failure to comply with the regulations and procedures of the Department of Public Health (Department). People v. Hamilton, 118 Ill. 2d 153, 161 (1987); People v. Miller, 219 Ill. App. 3d 246, 250-51 (1991). Absent compliance, the test result will be deemed invalid and inadmissible. Hamilton, 118 Ill. 2d at 160. Once the defendant presents evidence of noncompliance with the regulations or procedures, he does not have to prove that the test result was in fact affected; rather, the State must produce rebuttal evidence showing that the test was reliable. Graney, 234 Ill. App. 3d at 504-05; Miller, 219 Ill. App. 3d at 251.

Here, the question is whether the defendant made out a prima facie case that the test was not performed according to an operational procedure approved by the Department based on the manufacturer's recommended testing procedure. 77 Ill. Admin. Code