Find Legal Information

July 13, 2001

No. 3--00--0766

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 2001

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the opinion of the court:

On July 6, 2000, at 11:26 p.m. the defendant was arrested fordriving under the influence of alcohol (625 ILCS 5/11--501 (West2000)). At 12:22 a.m. on July 7, the officer warned the defendantabout the consequences of submitting to a blood, breath, or urinechemical test. At 12:51 a.m. the defendant failed the breathalyzertest. He was immediately served notice of the summary suspensionof his driving privileges and provided a copy of the lawenforcement sworn report. The report, however, incorrectly statesthe date of arrest as July 7, 2000, at 11:26 p.m. The test datewas properly recorded.

The defendant subsequently received confirmation from theSecretary of State of the statutory summary suspension. The letterinformed the defendant that his driving privileges would be revokedfor 12 months, beginning on August 22, 2000.

On August 24, 2000, the defendant petitioned the court torescind his statutory summary suspension based on the scrivener'serror in the report. A hearing was set for August 31. On the dayof the hearing, the State filed an amended sworn report changingthe date of the defendant's arrest to July 6, 2000, at 11:26 p.m. The amended report was signed by the arresting officer. No onetestified at the hearing. After considering arguments by bothsides, the trial court concluded that the erroneous arrest date wasnot fatal to the sworn report and denied the petition to rescind. The defendant now appeals.

The defendant argues that the scrivener's error in the swornreport warrants rescission of the statutory summary suspension. Hefurther claims that amended sworn report was untimely and shouldnot have been allowed to cure the defect in the initial report.

A driver who has been notified of the statutory summarysuspension of his driving privileges may file a petition to rescindthe suspension based on certain defects in the officer's swornreport. People v. Lent, 276 Ill. App. 3d 80, 657 N.E.2d 732(1995). In general, a scrivener's error in the sworn report whichdoes not affect the issuance of the statutory summary suspension ofthe defendant's driver's license is not fatal. Lent, 276 Ill. App.3d 80, 657 N.E.2d 732 (arresting officer's failure to personallyserve defendant with charges as indicated on the sworn report wasnot fatal to issuance of suspension); People v. Steder, 268 Ill.App. 3d 44, 642 N.E.2d 1360 (1994) (failure to sign driver'slicense receipts is merely a formal defect and did not affectvalidity of sworn report). Deficiencies in the report need not becorrected before the Secretary of State enters a statutory summarysuspension. People v. Badoud, 122 Ill. 2d 50, 521 N.E.2d 884(1988). An officer's sworn report may be amended at the hearing onthe petition to rescind the suspension. Badoud, 122 Ill. 2d 50,521 N.E.2d 884; cf. People v. Cooper, 174 Ill. App. 3d 500, 528N.E.2d 1011 (1988).

Section 11--501.1(h) of the Vehicle Code provides:

"Upon receipt of the sworn report from the lawenforcement officer, the Secretary of State shall confirmthe statutory summary suspension by mailing a notice ofthe effective date of the suspension to the person andthe court of venue. However, should the sworn report bedefective by not containing sufficient information or becompleted in error, the confirmation of the statutorysummary suspension shall not be mailed to the person orentered to the record; instead, the sworn report shall beforwarded to the court of venue with a copy returned tothe issuing agency identifying any defect." 625 ILCS5/11--501.1(h) (West 2000).

Pursuant to section 11--501.1(g), the Secretary of State isdirected to issue a summary suspension on the 46th day followingthe date the notice of the statutory summary suspension was served. 625 ILCS 5/11--501.1(g) (West 2000).

The defendant claims that since his sworn report wasdefective, the summary suspension of his license should not havebeen confirmed by the Secretary of State. Section 11--501.1(h)defines a defective report as one that does not contain sufficientinformation from which to issue a suspension or one that wascompleted in error. 625 ILCS 11--501.1(h) (West 2000). Aside fromthe date of arrest, the report in the instant case correctlyidentified the breathalyzer testing date as July 7, 2000. It alsoaccurately stated that the defendant was provided notice of thestatutory summary suspension immediately after he failed the teston July 7. Thus, the report contained sufficient information topermit the Secretary of State to calculate the effective date ofthe suspension. We find that the scrivener's error in the swornreport was merely a formal defect and did not affect the validityof the report. Moreover, the defect did not deprive the defendantof any substantial right because he received proper notice of thesummary suspension and the dates upon which the suspension wasbased were correctly recorded in the original sworn report.

The defendant's argument that the trial court erred inallowing the State to amend the report also fails. In Badoud, 122Ill. 2d 50, 521 N.E.2d 884, the arresting officer failed to swearto the report. The defendant challenged the scrivener's error,claiming that the statute required that the report be sworn to whenthe Secretary of State receives it and enters the suspension. Thesupreme court concluded that the summary suspension statute shouldbe construed liberally to accomplish the purpose of fosteringhighway safety. Consequently, it determined that the officershould be allowed to correct the error by swearing under oath thatthe report is true during the hearing on the petition to rescind. The fact that the suspension had been entered prior to the hearingdid not alter the court's determination. Badoud, 122 Ill. 2d 50,521 N.E.2d 884.

In the instant case, we recognize that the State did not seekto amend the sworn report until the error was raised in thedefendant's petition to rescind. However, based on Badoud, we seenothing inappropriate in the trial court's decision to allow theState to amend the report at the hearing.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of PutnamCounty is affirmed.

Affirmed.

HOMER, P.J., and LYTTON, J., concur.