reasonable grounds requirement in Illinois

2012As most DUI arrests are of motorists who have been driving or in control of vehicles on the highway, the necessary finding of reasonable cause will generally be tantamount to a finding that the arrest was legal, and a finding of no probable cause will necessitate rescission of the suspension even where the motorist failed or refused to take a blood-alcohol test." (Emphasis added.) People v. Krueger, 208 Ill.App.3d at 906 , 153 Ill.Dec. 759 , 567 N.E.2d 717 . ¶ 33 The Krueger court then succinctly held that, under the Vehicle Code, the Secretary of State's power to suspend a driver's license is

2012As most DUI arrests are of motorists who have been driving or in control of vehicles on the highway, the necessary finding of reasonable cause will generally be tantamount to a finding that the arrest was legal, and a finding of no probable cause will necessitate rescission of the suspension even where the motorist failed or refused to take a blood-alcohol test." (Emphasis added.) People v. Krueger, 208 Ill.App.3d at 906 , 153 Ill.Dec. 759 , 567 N.E.2d 717 . ¶ 33 The Krueger court then succinctly held that, under the Vehicle Code, the Secretary of State's power to suspend a driver's license is

2005Holveck, 141 Ill. 2d at 95 , citing People v. Wright, 111 Ill. 2d 128, 145 (1985); see 725 ILCS 5/102 — 5(c) (West 2002).

2005Holveck, 141 Ill. 2d at 95 , citing People v. Wright, 111 Ill. 2d 128, 145 (1985); see 725 ILCS 5/107 — 2(c) (West 2002).

2025See Stuart, - 13 - 2025 IL App (2d) 230516 547 U.S. at 404 ; Aljohani, 2022 IL 127037, ¶¶ 42-43 ; Wear, 229 Ill. 2d at 566 .

2025See Stuart, - 13 - 2025 IL App (2d) 230516 547 U.S. at 404 ; Aljohani, 2022 IL 127037, ¶¶ 42-43 ; Wear, 229 Ill. 2d at 566 .

1974Illinois Court has construed the reasonable grounds test of the Code quite liberally. • 7, 8 The actions of the sheriff in making the arrest are to be judged by the factual considerations of everyday life, and any assessment of the reasonableness of the sheriff's conduct should take into consideration the sheriff's responsibility and duty to maintain order, prevent crime and to apprehend criminals along with the fact that he had to act on a quick appraisal of the information before him. ( Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 ; People v. Watkins, 19 Ill.2d 11 ; People v. Cain, 35 Ill.2d 184,

1974Illinois Court has construed the reasonable grounds test of the Code quite liberally. • 7, 8 The actions of the sheriff in making the arrest are to be judged by the factual considerations of everyday life, and any assessment of the reasonableness of the sheriff's conduct should take into consideration the sheriff's responsibility and duty to maintain order, prevent crime and to apprehend criminals along with the fact that he had to act on a quick appraisal of the information before him. ( Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 ; People v. Watkins, 19 Ill.2d 11 ; People v. Cain, 35 Ill.2d 184,

1974Illinois Court has construed the reasonable grounds test of the Code quite liberally. • 7, 8 The actions of the sheriff in making the arrest are to be judged by the factual considerations of everyday life, and any assessment of the reasonableness of the sheriff's conduct should take into consideration the sheriff's responsibility and duty to maintain order, prevent crime and to apprehend criminals along with the fact that he had to act on a quick appraisal of the information before him. ( Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 ; People v. Watkins, 19 Ill.2d 11 ; People v. Cain, 35 Ill.2d 184,

1974Illinois Court has construed the reasonable grounds test of the Code quite liberally. • 7, 8 The actions of the sheriff in making the arrest are to be judged by the factual considerations of everyday life, and any assessment of the reasonableness of the sheriff's conduct should take into consideration the sheriff's responsibility and duty to maintain order, prevent crime and to apprehend criminals along with the fact that he had to act on a quick appraisal of the information before him. ( Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 ; People v. Watkins, 19 Ill.2d 11 ; People v. Cain, 35 Ill.2d 184,

1967In The People v. McCracken, 30 Ill2d 425, 197 NE2d 35 (1964), the defendant, who was a known offender to the police, was seen carrying certain articles in a location where several thefts had occurred.