|
|
Illinois v. Batchelder, 463 U.S. 1112 (1983)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Illinois v. Batchelder, 463 U.S. 1112 (1983)
Illinois v. Batchelder No. 82-947 Decided July 6, 1983 463 U.S. 1112
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE
COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT
Syllabus
Under Illinois’ implied consent statute, if a driver, arrested for driving while intoxicated, refuses to take a breath analysis test, the arresting officer must file with the clerk of the appropriate circuit court an affidavit that includes the statement that the officer had "reasonable cause to believe the person was driving the motor vehicle . . . while under the influence of intoxicating liquor." The clerk must then notify the arrestee that his license will be suspended unless he requests a hearing within a specified time. Respondent refused to take a breath analysis test after he was arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and the arresting officer filed an affidavit that included the assertion that, at the time of the arrest, he had "reasonable grounds to believe that said person was driving a motor vehicle in this State while under the influence of intoxicating liquor." Respondent exercised his statutory right to a hearing before suspension of his license. At the hearing, the judge found that the officer’s affidavit did not comply with the statute, and entered an order denying the State’s request for suspension of respondent’s license. The Illinois Appellate Court, although concluding that the affidavit literally complied with the statute’s requirements, held that the affidavit was insufficient under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that the statute would be constitutional only if it required an arresting officer to set out in his affidavit the underlying circumstances which provided him with a reasonable belief that the arrestee was driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Held: Under the test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require an arresting officer, in enforcing Illinois’ implied consent statute, to recite in his affidavit the specific evidentiary matters constituting the underlying circumstances which provided him with a reasonable belief that the arrestee was driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The driver’s right to a hearing before he may be deprived of his license for failing to submit to a breath analysis test accords him all of the process that the Federal Constitution assures. Cf. Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1.
Certiorari granted; 107 Ill.App.3d 81, 437 N.E.2d 364, reversed and remanded.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Illinois v. Batchelder, 463 U.S. 1112 (1983) in 463 U.S. 1112 463 U.S. 1113. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HG2D2L2XHH13AU6.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Illinois v. Batchelder, 463 U.S. 1112 (1983), in 463 U.S. 1112, page 463 U.S. 1113. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HG2D2L2XHH13AU6.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Illinois v. Batchelder, 463 U.S. 1112 (1983). cited in 1983, 463 U.S. 1112, pp.463 U.S. 1113. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HG2D2L2XHH13AU6.
|