Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Village's Prosecution of Cannabis DUI For High School Driver’s Education Student
The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a 16-year-old Stevenson High School student for driving under the influence (DUI) during a driver’s education class.
The Village of Lincolnshire (Village) brought state DUI charges against the student, who was later found guilty in a bench trial. The student appealed and his case made its way to the Illinois Supreme Court, where he argued that the Village lacked authority to prosecute the DUI, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of DUI.
First, the student claimed that the Village lacked authority to prosecute the DUI because it failed to present written permission from the State authorizing the Village to prosecute the case under state statute. The parties agreed that the Village did have such written permission in this case. The statute at issue does not require the Village to submit its written permission into the record. Both the Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the arguments presented, and held that the statute does not require the Village to submit written authority into the record at trial.
Second, the student argued that the Village failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was under the influence of cannabis, and that it was to a degree that “rendered him incapable of safely driving.” In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the court must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the required elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Illinois Supreme Court noted that at trial, the Village presented testimony from the driver’s education teacher, who observed many concerns with the student’s driving that day. The student did not look over his shoulder or check the car’s rearview mirror when backing out. While driving, the student veered into the outside lane as he turned left into the inside lane, causing the teacher to grab the wheel to avoid a car approaching on the right, and the student continued veering left and right as he drove down the road. The teacher grabbed the wheel several times to put the student back into the proper lane. As the student approached a stop sign, the teacher had to use the brake on his side of the car to stop the vehicle because defendant “wasn’t going to come to a complete stop,” and again had to use the brake when the student approached a stoplight. After the drive, the Dean assigned to the student was called. The Dean spoke with defendant and testified that his speech was slow, he was confused, and he could not respond quickly to questioning. The Dean was concerned and walked the student to the nurse’s office thinking the student needed to be checked out medically. Afterwards, the Dean interviewed the student, who told her that he had been up all night because he had been using marijuana in the evening and that his mother caught him.
Given the admission about using marijuana, the Dean called another dean of students at the high school, and asked for a student search of defendant. That other dean searched the student and found a skinny, white, rolled object in the student’s wallet. The student said that it was a marijuana cigarette. The Dean then called a Village police officer who was employed by the high school as a school resource officer. The resource officer conducted a balance assessment on the student, who kept falling over, losing his balance and catching himself with his other foot or his hand. After failing the field sobriety tests, the officer informed the student that he would be arrested. Additional evidence was submitted into the record of surveillance footage from the high school showing the student stumbling through the school hallways before exiting to the driver’s education vehicle. In addition, field sobriety tests were conducted in the booking room at the police station. Those tests were video recorded, admitted into evidence, and played for the trial court. That police officer also determined that the student was under the influence. The trial court found defendant guilty of DUI (cannabis).
When viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the evidence supported a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the student was under influence of cannabis and was incapable of safely driving, upholding his conviction.
A copy of the case is available here.