5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bergingreen2 sentences2010App. 36, 39 , 217 P.3d 1087, 1088 (2009), the defendant argued the admission of certificates attesting to the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer was in error under Melendez-Diaz. 2010App. 36, 39 , 217 P.3d 1087, 1088 (2009), the defendant argued the admission of certificates attesting to the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer was in error under Melendez-Diaz. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
California v. Trombetta
green
2 sentences1995Ed. 2d 413 , 104 S. Ct. 2528 , which for obvious reasons is set out in some detail, the defendants were stopped by the police on suspicion of drunk driving and submitted to an "Intoxilyzer test.” The test showed a blood-alcohol concentration level substantially higher than the level at which a driver is presumed to be intoxicated. 1995In Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 , 104 S.Ct. 2528 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 , which for obvious reasons is set out in some detail, the defendants were stopped by the police on suspicion of drunk driving and submitted to an "Intoxilyzer test." The test showed a blood-alcohol concentration level substantially higher than the level at which a driver is presumed to be intoxicated. | 2 | 1984–1995 |
Killian v. United States
green
2 sentences1995In finding no due process violation, the Court first noted that the State did not destroy the breath samples "in a calculated effort to circumvent the disclosure requirements established by Brady v. Maryland and its progeny"; rather, it acted "`in good faith and in accord with their normal practice.'" Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 488 , 104 S.Ct. at 2533 , 81 L.Ed.2d at 422 , quoting Killian v. United States (1961), 368 U.S. 231, 242 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 308 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 264 . 1995In finding no due process violation, the Court first noted that the State did not destroy the breath samples "in a calculated effort to circumvent the disclosure requirements established by Brady v. Maryland and its progeny"; rather, it acted "`in good faith and in accord with their normal practice.'" Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 488 , 104 S.Ct. at 2533 , 81 L.Ed.2d at 422 , quoting Killian v. United States (1961), 368 U.S. 231, 242 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 308 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 264 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Pasek v. Commissioner of Public Safety
green
2 sentences1991(Cf. Pasek, 383 N.W.2d 1 (wherein the intoxilyzer operator testified that chewing tobacco did not affect test results).) Johnson had had chewing tobacco in his mouth until about 13 minutes before the intoxilyzer test was administered. 1991(Cf. Pasek, 383 N.W.2d 1 (wherein the intoxilyzer operator testified that chewing tobacco did not affect test results).) Johnson had had chewing tobacco in his mouth until about 13 minutes before the intoxilyzer test was administered. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.