Find Legal Information

Docket Nos. 94780, 94900 cons.-Agenda 6-May 2003.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. CRAIGA. HANNA et al., Appellees-THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OFILLINOIS, Appellant, v. DAVID D. VAUGHN et al., Appellees.

Opinion filed October 17, 2003.

CHIEF JUSTICE McMORROW delivered the opinion of thecourt:

At issue in this case is whether certain devices for measuringbreath alcohol were properly tested by the Illinois Department ofPublic Health before being approved for use as evidential breathanalysis instruments in Illinois. In two decisions, the appellate courtconcluded that they were not. 332 Ill. App. 3d 527; Nos. 5-01-0912,5-01-0914 cons. (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).We consolidated these decisions for review and now reverse thejudgments of the appellate court.

BACKGROUND

The defendants in this case were each arrested for driving underthe influence of alcohol in unrelated incidents which occurred in either1999 or 2000. Each defendant submitted to breath testing and eachdefendant recorded a breath-alcohol level above the legal limit.Following their arrests, four of the defendants, Craig A. Hanna,Kathryn R. Price, Keith Ryan O'Loughin and Gordon R. Pruett, wereprosecuted in the circuit court of Williamson County for driving underthe influence of alcohol. The remaining two defendants, David D.Vaughn and Kevin L. Johnson, were prosecuted in the circuit court ofJohnson County for the same offense.

Williamson County Defendants

Prior to their trials, the four Williamson County defendants, whowere all represented by the same attorney, filed separate but similarmotions in which they sought to suppress the results of their breathtests. In these motions, defendants alleged that the particular makesand models of the breath testing devices which the police had used tomeasure their breath-alcohol levels were not properly tested by theIllinois Department of Public Health (Department) before being placedon the Department's list of approved evidentiary breath analysisinstruments. From this, defendants argued that the breath testingdevices used in their cases should not have been in use in Illinois, andthat the results of their breath tests should therefore be suppressed.Defendants did not allege in their motions that the results of theirbreath tests were, in fact, invalid or unreliable.

The suppression argument made by the Williamson Countydefendants was premised on the regulatory scheme for breath testingdevices found in section 11-501.2 of the Illinois Vehicle Code(Vehicle Code) (625 ILCS 5/11-501.2 (West 1998)) and section510.40 of title 77 of the Illinois Administrative Code (title 77) (77 Ill.Adm. Code