All but one of 27 drunken-driving cases resolved in south suburban Beecher this year resulted in plea agreements with the municipal prosecutor that put the driver back on the road and maximized revenues for the village, an examination of court records shows.
More Top Picks Memory Foam Mattresses
The Tribune study of Will County Circuit Court cases from Beecher comes after allegations made last week by Chief Judge Herman Haase that the village and other Will towns are handling DUI cases with profit in mind.
Only about 10 percent of those arrested statewide for driving under the influence keep their licenses under the state’s summary suspension law. But in the Beecher cases studied, the figure was 96 percent.
In most of the Beecher cases, the defendants pleaded guilty to driving under the influence or the charge was changed to reckless driving, and the maximum $1,000 fine was imposed.
In addition, the plea-bargain agreements included rescinding the automatic suspension of the defendant’s driver’s license, contrary to the intent of Illinois drunken-driving laws, which are among the toughest in the nation.
In a memo last week to the circuit judges, Haase said that “some village prosecutors are regularly reducing all DUIs, including some second offenses, for . . . a heavy fine.”
The “wholesale plea bargaining of DUI cases is something that tends to bring the judicial office and all of us into disrepute,” Haase wrote.
Beecher municipal attorney Tom Knuth denied Haase’s allegations. When he was presented with the Tribune’s analysis of the cases, he said he wasn’t shocked at the number of drivers who had their licenses returned.
“Our theory is if it’s a first-time offender, and we can get the maximum fine out of him, and no accident was involved, and there was not a high (score on the) breath test, we agree to (returning the licenses),” he said.
The records showed that 26 of the 27 drivers whose licenses were automatically suspended as the result of DUI arrests in Beecher got them back quickly once they pleaded guilty and paid the $1,000 fine.
The study covered the 51 drunken-driving cases originating in Beecher since the beginning of the year. Of those, 27 have been prosecuted to a conclusion.
Under law, drivers arrested for driving under the influence must take a Breathalyzer test. Drivers whose results are over the legal limit summarily lose their licenses for three months; drivers who refuse to take the test summarily lose their licenses for six months.
Yet, under many of the deals worked out in Beecher, the licenses were returned in only a few days or weeks.
In the case of most first-time offenders, Beecher collected a $1,000 fine and the drivers were given court supervision, which removes the offense from their driving records after a period of safe driving.
If a case proceeds to trial as a DUI, judges typically don’t assess the maximum fine against first-time offenders, attorneys say, and in those cases a village reaps less revenue.
Under law, a hearing is required to rescind the automatic suspension of a drunken driver’s license, and the license may only be returned if specific conditions were not met at the time of the arrest. The arresting officer, for example, must have had reasonable grounds to make the arrest and must have warned the driver of the consequences of taking or refusing the Breathalyzer test.
The analysis of Beecher cases showed the village prosecutors failed to show up at those hearings or failed to present evidence to rebut defense motions that the automatic suspension was invalid.
In some cases, court records showed the suspensions were lifted because the arresting officer failed to warn properly the driver of the consequences of taking or refusing to take the Breathalyzer test. Yet the same files contained a written warning presented to the driver by the arresting officer and acknowledged by the driver’s signature.
Before 1990, the authority to prosecute defendants seeking the return of their driver’s licenses rested only with the state’s attorney. But an Illinois Supreme Court precedent that year gave municipal attorneys power to deal with all aspects of DUI cases in which local authorities made the arrests.
“I think it’s better if the state’s attorney handles these summary suspensions,” Haase said. “It’s just one more check and balance on the system.”
Most of the Beecher cases were prosecuted by Knuth. They were heard either in the Joliet courtroom of Associate Judge John Cirricione, who is under fire for allegedly being lenient on drunken drivers, or in the Monee branch court presided over by Associate Judge Vincent Cerri.
Cerri said there are many plea bargains in DUI cases, and they are not unusual for first-time offenders. He said he doesn’t question them as a matter of course, but he would be “grossly offended” if prosecutors were making deals with a municipal profit motive in mind.
“If justice is for sale in America, I don’t want any part of it,” he said. “That will be the single, solitary thing that will bring the judicial system down. If the public truly believes that justice is only for the rich, then we’ve had it.”
“We never said there weren’t rescissions,” Knuth said. “You bet there are. People were saying they were all being reduced and they weren’t.”
The only Beecher case the Tribune found that was not plea-bargained was that of James W. Wilson, 48, of Chicago, who was found guilty of driving under the influence and was sentenced by Cirricione to 125 hours of community service and court supervision. That sentence ran contrary to state law, which dictates that Wilson, a second-time offender, should have had his license revoked.
More Top Picks Bose Quietcomfort Ultra Vs Bose 700 Headphones
At the time, Cirricione said he felt sorry for Wilson, a Salvation Army truck driver who apparently could not afford the $1,000 fine. Controversy surrounding his case ignited interest in DUI cases in Beecher.
Of the 51 Beecher cases filed since Jan. 1, 24 were still pending, had been rolled into a more serious felony charge, were dismissed because of a lack of evidence or faulty arrest, or involved defendants who failed to appear in court and are being sought on warrants.
Five additional cases were still in the judicial pipeline and their files could not be located.
Based on estimates by court officials, the 26 cases pumped as much as $20,000 into the municipal treasury, with the rest going for court costs and special-purpose fees.
The budget for the Beecher Police Department, which receives the town’s share of the revenue from court fines, is $408,000 for fiscal 1998, according to Village Administrator Bob Barber. Of that, $70,000 is projected to come from assorted criminal and traffic fines.
Will County State’s Atty. James Glasgow said that he has spoken to Knuth and told him that he doesn’t condone Beecher’s practice as reflected in the study, but noted the village has sole authority to prosecute local ordinance DUI violations.
As to the extent of the problem in Will County, Glasgow said, “I have talked to other municipal attorneys, and they adamantly denied it.”
But John C. Prehn Jr., the county’s public defender, who offered the qualification that he has not done countywide research, said, “You get much better offers in the outlying courts, especially if you’ve got the money.”