field test in Illinois

2000As defendant correctly notes, in People v. Judkins, 28 Ill.2d 417 , 192 N.E.2d 848 (1963), this court found a field test to be insufficient.

2000As defendant correctly notes, in People v. Judkins, 28 Ill. 2d 417 (1963), this court found a field test to be insufficient.

2000This court discussed the sufficiency of a field test in People v. Clark, 7 Ill.2d 163 , 130 N.E.2d 195 (1955).

2000This court discussed the sufficiency of a field test in People v. Clark, 7 Ill. 2d 163 (1955).

2019Id. at 311-12 .

2010Newberry, 166 Ill.2d at 312 , 209 Ill.Dec. 748 , 652 N.E.2d 288 .

2012As noted in McKown , the manual devotes six pages to the subject of nystagmus and "outlines a 10-step procedure for performing a field test for HGN." McKown, 236 Ill.2d at 296-97 , 338 *555 Ill.Dec. 415, 924 N.E.2d at 951 -52 (citing DOT HS 178 R2/06, at VIII-7). ¶ 24 The manual defines nystagmus as an involuntary jerking of the eyes and states alcohol and certain other drugs cause HGN.

2012As noted in McKown , the manual devotes six pages to the subject of nystagmus and "outlines a 10-step procedure for performing a field test for HGN." McKown, 236 Ill.2d at 296-97 , 338 *555 Ill.Dec. 415, 924 N.E.2d at 951 -52 (citing DOT HS 178 R2/06, at VIII-7). ¶ 24 The manual defines nystagmus as an involuntary jerking of the eyes and states alcohol and certain other drugs cause HGN.

2007Apollo, 412 Pa. Super, at 461, 603 A.2d at 1027 .

2007Apollo, 412 Pa. Super. at 461 , 603 A.2d at 1027 .

2006In People v. Blue, 343 Ill.

2006In People v. Blue, 343 Ill.

2000The appellate court reversed defendant's conviction and vacated his sentence, holding that (1) a field test cannot be sufficient to sustain a finding that a substance is a controlled substance and (2) the State failed to prove the field test's reliability. 301 Ill.App.3d 491 , 234 Ill.Dec. 873 , 703 N.E.2d 973 .

2000The appellate court reversed defendant's conviction and vacated his sentence, holding that (1) a field test cannot be sufficient to sustain a finding that a substance is a controlled substance and (2) the State failed to prove the field test's reliability. 301 Ill.App.3d 491 , 234 Ill.Dec. 873 , 703 N.E.2d 973 .

1997Lawton, 253 Ill.App.3d at 148 , 192 Ill.Dec. 388 , 625 N.E.2d 348 .

1997Lawton, 253 Ill.App.3d at 148 , 192 Ill.Dec. 388 , 625 N.E.2d 348 .

1995App.3d at 456 ), 12 Ill.Dec. 76 , 369 N.E.2d 573 )—the laboratory analysis of the evidence will carry great weight with the jury (see Taylor, 54 Ill.App.3d at 458 , 12 Ill.Dec. 76 , 369 N.E.2d 573 ), and the jury will undoubtedly give such an analysis more deference than the initial field test procedures, which are inherently less precise and controlled.

1995App.3d at 456 ), 12 Ill.Dec. 76 , 369 N.E.2d 573 )—the laboratory analysis of the evidence will carry great weight with the jury (see Taylor, 54 Ill.App.3d at 458 , 12 Ill.Dec. 76 , 369 N.E.2d 573 ), and the jury will undoubtedly give such an analysis more deference than the initial field test procedures, which are inherently less precise and controlled.

1965(People v. Redding, 28 Ill.2d 305 ; People v. Boozer, 12 Ill.2d 184 .) The tin-foil package delivered to the officers by the informer was the customary type of package used by narcotics peddlers.

1963In People v. Boozer, 12 Ill.2d 184 , we declared that the law does not impose such precise exactions.

2025After acknowledging he understood his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), defendant denied selling methamphetamine for money from his home but admitted he gave people methamphetamine for “merchandise” or to get people to leave him alone. ¶ 11 Freshour testified, on June 28, 2023, defendant made a phone call from jail, which he listened to, as his duties included monitoring jail telephone calls.

2023Raethz, 346 Ill.

2005Thus, the only evidence that the substance was anhydrous ammonia was the testimony of three officers that they smelled the odor of anhydrous ammonia, which they described as distinctive and “unmistakable.” In support of her argument that this testimony is insufficient, the defendant cites People v. Hagberg, 192 Ill. 2d 29 , 733 N.E.2d 1271 (2000); People v. Jones, 174 Ill. 2d 427 , 675 N.E.2d 99 (1996); People v. Newberry, 166 Ill. 2d 310 , 652 N.E.2d 288 (1995); and People v. Brown, 3 Ill.

2005Thus, the only evidence that the substance was anhydrous ammonia was the testimony of three officers that they smelled the odor of anhydrous ammonia, which they described as distinctive and “unmistakable.” In support of her argument that this testimony is insufficient, the defendant cites People v. Hagberg, 192 Ill. 2d 29 , 733 N.E.2d 1271 (2000); People v. Jones, 174 Ill. 2d 427 , 675 N.E.2d 99 (1996); People v. Newberry, 166 Ill. 2d 310 , 652 N.E.2d 288 (1995); and People v. Brown, 3 Ill.

2005Thus, the only evidence that the substance was anhydrous ammonia was the testimony of three officers that they smelled the odor of anhydrous ammonia, which they described as distinctive and “unmistakable.” In support of her argument that this testimony is insufficient, the defendant cites People v. Hagberg, 192 Ill. 2d 29 , 733 N.E.2d 1271 (2000); People v. Jones, 174 Ill. 2d 427 , 675 N.E.2d 99 (1996); People v. Newberry, 166 Ill. 2d 310 , 652 N.E.2d 288 (1995); and People v. Brown, 3 Ill.

1993App. 3d 599 , 610 N.E.2d 197 .) Trooper Tracy’s explanations as to why they detained defendant after the field test were mere hunches and suspicions.

1993Dec. 773 , 610 N.E.2d 197 .) Trooper Tracy's explanations as to why they detained defendant after the field test were mere *136 hunches and suspicions.

1990However, a showing of actual malice is required in such cases to recover punitive damages. [4] Peagler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (1977), 114 Ariz. 309 , 560 P.2d 1216 ; Dodrill v. Arkansas Democrat Co. (1979), 265 Ark. 628 , 590 S.W.2d 840 ; Corbett v. Register Pub.

1990However, a showing of actual malice is required in such cases to recover punitive damages. [4] Peagler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (1977), 114 Ariz. 309 , 560 P.2d 1216 ; Dodrill v. Arkansas Democrat Co. (1979), 265 Ark. 628 , 590 S.W.2d 840 ; Corbett v. Register Pub.

1990Thus, the Field defendants are the only defendants remaining in this case. [3] In Gertz, 418 U.S. 323 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , our Court has determined that the States could impose whatever standard they chose, excepting strict liability, to allow a plaintiff to recover actual damages.

1990Thus, the Field defendants are the only defendants remaining in this case. [3] In Gertz, 418 U.S. 323 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , our Court has determined that the States could impose whatever standard they chose, excepting strict liability, to allow a plaintiff to recover actual damages.

1990However, a showing of actual malice is required in such cases to recover punitive damages. [4] Peagler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (1977), 114 Ariz. 309 , 560 P.2d 1216 ; Dodrill v. Arkansas Democrat Co. (1979), 265 Ark. 628 , 590 S.W.2d 840 ; Corbett v. Register Pub.

1990However, a showing of actual malice is required in such cases to recover punitive damages. [4] Peagler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (1977), 114 Ariz. 309 , 560 P.2d 1216 ; Dodrill v. Arkansas Democrat Co. (1979), 265 Ark. 628 , 590 S.W.2d 840 ; Corbett v. Register Pub.

1989(People v. Clark (1955), 7 Ill. 2d 163, 171 ; People v. Gaston (1975), 31 Ill.

1987App. 3d 515, 517-18 , 404 N.E.2d 435 , appeal denied (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 594 .) Thus, the construction of a supreme court rule relating to timely service of summons was held to be a question of law not within the field of inquiry allowed by this section (Jerome v. 5019-21 Quincy Street Building Corp. (1944), 385 Ill. 524, 527-28 , 53 N.E.2d 444 ; Cooper v. United Development Co. (1984), 122 Ill.

1987App. 3d 515, 517-18 , 404 N.E.2d 435 , appeal denied (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 594 .) Thus, the construction of a supreme court rule relating to timely service of summons was held to be a question of law not within the field of inquiry allowed by this section (Jerome v. 5019-21 Quincy Street Building Corp. (1944), 385 Ill. 524, 527-28 , 53 N.E.2d 444 ; Cooper v. United Development Co. (1984), 122 Ill.

1987App. 3d 515, 517-18 , 404 N.E.2d 435 , appeal denied (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 594 .) Thus, the construction of a supreme court rule relating to timely service of summons was held to be a question of law not within the field of inquiry allowed by this section (Jerome v. 5019-21 Quincy Street Building Corp. (1944), 385 Ill. 524, 527-28 , 53 N.E.2d 444 ; Cooper v. United Development Co. (1984), 122 Ill.

1987App. 3d 515, 517-18 , 404 N.E.2d 435 , appeal denied (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 594 .) Thus, the construction of a supreme court rule relating to timely service of summons was held to be a question of law not within the field of inquiry allowed by this section (Jerome v. 5019-21 Quincy Street Building Corp. (1944), 385 Ill. 524, 527-28 , 53 N.E.2d 444 ; Cooper v. United Development Co. (1984), 122 Ill.

1987App. 3d 850, 857 , 462 N.E.2d 629 , appeal denied (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 563 ), and the violation of a local court rule requiring notice to the opposing party of assessment of damages was held to be an error of law which could not be corrected by this section (McNulty v. White (1928), 248 Ill.

1987App. 3d 850, 857 , 462 N.E.2d 629 , appeal denied (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 563 ), and the violation of a local court rule requiring notice to the opposing party of assessment of damages was held to be an error of law which could not be corrected by this section (McNulty v. White (1928), 248 Ill.