Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cook County tax commissioner Samantha Steele not guilty in DUI trial
Chicago Tribune via Yahoo ^ | 5/05/26 | A.D. Quig

Posted on 05/25/2026 8:19:05 AM PDT by Libloather

A judge declared Cook County Board of Review Commissioner Samantha Steele not guilty of driving under the influence late Tuesday morning.

While Cook County prosecutors established a “suspicion” of impairment, Judge Donald Suriano said they failed to definitively prove Steele was under the influence of alcohol when she crashed a friend’s car into two parked vehicles along Ashland Avenue in November 2024.

Steele refused a field sobriety test and a blood draw that night, and did not show “obvious signs of impairment,” Suriano said, noting the bottle of wine in her front passenger seat was corked and sealed within a bag. “The burden has not been met,” he concluded, declaring her not guilty.

Prosecutors had argued she exhibited slurred speech, could not keep her head up, swayed while standing and smelled of alcohol. She was also “extraordinarily disrespectful” to the officers that responded to the crash, a sign of impaired judgment.

But her defense attorney, John Fotopoulos, said the state’s seven witnesses could not keep their stories straight, and disagreed about the scent of alcohol.

While “not pretty,” her refusal to be tested was well within her constitutional rights, and Steele complied with other orders to present her license and exit the car, Fotopoulos said. Her emergency room doctor also reported Steele was alert, oriented and able to walk without a problem.

Steele did not testify. After the verdict, she said in a statement that she was “pleased that justice prevailed today and the court defended the constitution. I look forward to finishing the rest of my term in Cook county rooted in transparency, efficiency, and fairness.”

(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Health/Medicine; Local News; Outdoors; Travel
KEYWORDS: chicago; dui; guilty; steele; trial
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: subterfuge

She will eventually kill someone with her car. Probably herself too after she walks free from other crashes a couple more times.


And then she’ll run for President and win.


21 posted on 05/25/2026 9:33:16 AM PDT by dfwgator ("I am Charlie Kirk!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

No one who drives under the influence of alcohol or another substance is innocent.


22 posted on 05/25/2026 10:01:38 AM PDT by californian by choice (Who are those who believe in science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

“And then she’ll run for President and win.”

Well she has the lying down so she’s got that going for her.


23 posted on 05/25/2026 10:01:39 AM PDT by subterfuge (What happened to my tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Liberal privilege. Female privilege. Politician privilege.

I bet the judge got a nice perk too.


24 posted on 05/25/2026 11:02:24 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Its more than two tiers.


25 posted on 05/25/2026 11:02:50 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: miniTAX

We live in the age of legal liability. That’s why all the “allegedly” references.


26 posted on 05/25/2026 11:04:27 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Looks like quite a lady.


27 posted on 05/25/2026 12:06:39 PM PDT by kawhill (Dywedwch Wrthbym because + Add translation Welsh-English dictionary 'Tell Us')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The insurance companies involved won’t be too kind.


28 posted on 05/25/2026 12:45:09 PM PDT by Mark (I enjoy checking DONORS' lists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
I am confuse and maybe one of you can help. "Steele refused a field sobriety test and a blood draw that night...
"her refusal to be tested was well within her constitutional rights"

I thought no one had the right to refuse a blood draw or breathalyzer test. Are the Illinois laws different somehow?

29 posted on 05/25/2026 1:25:23 PM PDT by Buffalo Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

“We live in the age of legal liability. “


Legal liability has nothing to do with the misuse and abuse of the qualifier “allegedly” for reporting indisputable facts filmed by multiple cameras. Because if it does, then we should also be told things like “the woman had allegedly crashed into allegedly 2 cars”. And while we are at this, people have been sued into oblivion for misgendering, so it should be “the alleged women had allegedly...”


30 posted on 05/25/2026 1:25:51 PM PDT by miniTAX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: miniTAX

I agree. Certain lawyers don’t.


31 posted on 05/25/2026 2:20:05 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I saw that video too. She was obviously impaired.


32 posted on 05/25/2026 10:39:11 PM PDT by rxh4n1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Bob

Sounds like certain steps were skipped. Her license should’ve been suspended that night.

To blow or not to blow: The breathalyzer dilemma in Illinois
On Behalf of Del Re Law Group, P.C | Jun 3, 2024 | DUI

Law enforcement officers can use breathalyzer tests at DUI checkpoints to confirm any suspicions of impaired driving among drivers. Unlike Standardized Field Sobriety tests (SFSTs), which can be superficial, breathalyzers can (usually) definitively tell the police if a motorist’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is 0.08% and above.

You might wonder if it’s prudent to refuse a breathalyzer test if you suspect that your BAC might be problematic. Fully comprehending the implications of such actions can help you make informed decisions during these critical moments.

The right to refuse, but with a price

You might be pleased to learn that the Prairie State law grants you the right to refuse a breathalyzer test. This refusal won’t prevent an arrest if the officer has probable cause, but it won’t be used as sole evidence of guilt in court.

However, there’s a catch: refusing a breathalyzer may trigger the suspension of your driver’s license on the spot. Even if it’s your first time refusing a breathalyzer test, your driver’s license may be suspended for an entire year. If you’re someone who greatly relies on your vehicles to move around, this can be a significant inconvenience. What’s more, this suspension is separate from any potential DUI charges and applies even if you’re ultimately not convicted.

As if that’s not enough, the officer may still request a blood or urine test as an alternative. Of course, unlike a breathalyzer, these tests require a warrant unless you consent. Refusing these tests could also lead to a harsher stance from the prosecutor.

Potential benefits of refusing the test

Despite these severe penalties, there might be strategic reasons to refuse a test. While breathalyzer results are more accurate than (SFSTs), they can be susceptible to errors. The results can be influenced by:

The calibration of the device

The administration of the test

Underlying medical conditions

Yet, the fact that refusing a breathalyzer test at a DUI stop in Illinois comes with an automatic suspension of your license is hard to ignore. Ultimately, the best strategy to fight DUI charges (and the complications that can arise from breathalyzer refusal, if applicable) is to speak with a trusted legal team if you get in trouble at a DUI checkpoint.

https://www.daviddelrelaw.com/blog/2024/06/to-blow-or-not-to-blow-the-breathalyzer-dilemma-in-illinois/


33 posted on 05/26/2026 5:52:41 PM PDT by Libloather (Why do climate change hoax deniers live in mansions on the beach?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson