http://triblocal.com/skokie/2010/11/05/skokie-school-bus-driver-avoids-jail-for-child-endangerment/

The above Chicago Tribune news link concerns the case of People of the State of Illinois v. B.S., where Barry D. Sheppard and Associates obtained an acquittal on behalf of their client who was charged with Aggravated Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (a felony). The charge alleged that the defendant drove a school bus containing 41 Solomon Schechter students while under the influence of drugs.  Skokie police officers curbed the school bus after a concerned citizen had notified the police that the school bus was driving erratically and that the bus driver appeared to be slumped over the wheel.   Skokie police officers testified that after the defendant initially pulled over, he continued to drive, knocking down a sign that had been posted in a Hampton Inn parking lot.  The police officers observed the defendant’s speech and balance to be impaired and believed him to be under the influence of drugs.  The defendant submitted to a blood test which yielded the presence of Tramadol (a pain killer) and Diphenhydramine (Benadryl).At trial, the State called its toxicology expert, Dr. Larson. Dr. Larson testified that the amounts of those drugs in the defendant’s system were at the low end of the therapeutic range.  He could only opine that those drugs, at those levels, could cause impairment. The State’s other witnesses included the concerned citizen who alerted the police, three Skokie police officers, a paramedic, and one of the students on the school bus, a seventh grader.  The student testified that the bus was traveling with the bus door open and weaving.  On cross-examination, the student acknowledged that the defendant was a “nice bus driver” and that he was not acting belligerently towards the kids.On cross-examination of the police officers and the paramedic, the defense adduced that the defendant had informed them that he was a diabetic and that he may have been suffering from a low blood-sugar episode.  Each of the police officers and the paramedic conceded that the symptoms of a low blood sugar episode may replicate the symptoms of apparent intoxication.  However, when the paramedic tested the defendant’s blood sugar levels, it was within the normal range.The defendant then called his treating physician to the stand.  The defendant’s physician testified that he has treated the defendant for Type 1 diabetes for the past ten years.  Moreover, he testified that a diabetic’s blood sugar levels can fluctuate from one moment to the next and, therefore, the mere fact that the defendant’s blood sugar was within normal range when the paramedics tested it, does not negate the possibility that his symptoms were due to a low blood-sugar episode.Following the close of the evidence in the case, the defense submitted a Memorandum of Law In Support of Finding of Not-Guilty.  The memorandum cited appellate court cases which held that a DUI defendant was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because he had presented a ”reasonable alternative explanation” for his symptoms of apparent intoxication.  After taking the matter under consideration, the trial judge found the defendant not-guilty of Aggravated Driving Under the Influence of Drugs.   A finding of guilty was entered on the misdemeanor charge of Endangering the Life of a Child where the State was only required to prove that the defendant drove when he knew or should have known that he was physically unable to do so.  The court ruled that although the defendant may not have been under the influence of drugs, he knew that he was suffering from some type of attack, and, by continuing to drive, endangered the lives of the children.At sentencing on the misdemeanor offense, the State’s Attorney’s office requested the Court to sentence the defendant to jail. The defense objected, noting that the defendant was eligible for court “supervision” on the misdemeanor offense and citing his problem-free driving while this case was pending.  The judge denied the State’s request for jail and placed the defendant on one year probation with 100 hours of community service.The defendant did not suffer any interruption of driving privileges.  As a result of the acquittal on the charge of Aggravated DUI, the defendant’s driving privileges will not be revoked.  The six-month statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges that that had been issued following his arrest was also rescinded.  That rescission was obtained by the defense following a hearing where the judge agreed that a summary suspension was not statutorily authorized because the drugs in the defendant’s system were not “controlled substances.”