APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION
535 N.E.2d 1025, 180 Ill. App. 3d 341, 129 Ill. Dec. 260 1989.IL.260
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Arthur Rosenblum, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE RIZZI delivered the opinion of the court. FREEMAN, P.J., and WHITE, J., concur.
DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE RIZZI
The State of Illinois appeals an order of the circuit court of Cook County which rescinded the statutory summary suspension of defendant Zdzislaw Kubica's driving privileges. On appeal, the State argues that rescission of defendant's statutory summary suspension was not warranted under the circumstances. We reverse and remand.
On November 26, 1986, defendant was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. When the police stopped defendant, he was asked to submit to a sobriety test. Defendant refused the test. When defendant refused the test, his driving privileges were summarily suspended pursuant to section 11-501.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-501.1).
The arresting officer completed a law enforcement sworn report (Report) wherein he identified the reason for the suspension as well as the reasonable grounds upon which he believed defendant had violated section 11 -- 501. The officer signed the Report, wrote his star number on the Report and gave a copy to defendant.
On January 5, 1987, defendant petitioned the court to rescind the statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges. Pursuant to the statute, an implied consent hearing was scheduled. At the hearing, defendant moved to dismiss, claiming that the Report was not sworn to under oath by the arresting officer. The trial court then rescinded the suspension of defendant's driving privileges based upon its decision that the arresting officer's signature on the Report was illegible. This appeal followed.
We initially note that a hearing on rescission of the statutory summary suspension of one's driving privileges is a civil proceeding separate and distinct from a criminal prosecution for driving under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, the State has the right to appeal an adverse ruling such as the one here before this court. People v. Porretta (1984), 127 Ill. App. 3d 572, 574, 469 N.E.2d 314, 316.
Section 2 -- 118.1, which authorizes implied consent hearings, reads in part:
"The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issues of:
1. Whether the person was placed under arrest for an offense as defined in Section 11 -- 501, or a similar provision of a local ordinance, as evidenced by the issuance of a Uniform Traffic Ticket; and
2. Whether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that such person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway while under the influence of ...