Engelbrecht, 225 Ill. App.3d at 557, relying in part on People v. Znaniecki, 181 Ill. App.3d 389, 392 (1989) (stating that an incomplete warning required rescission). In People v. Estrada, 313 Ill. App.3d 245 (2000), the defendant, Steven Estrada, was charged with driving under the influence of cannabis on January 29, 1999. He was subsequently notified of the six-month suspension of his driver's license.
Some appellate panels have held that warnings which contain any misinformation are a sufficient basis to rescind suspension. Engelbrecht, 225 Ill. App.3d at 556; People v. Estrada, 313 Ill. App.3d 245, 248 (2000). Conversely, other panels of the appellate court have held that the inaccurate warning must "prejudice" or "materially affect" the motorist before rescission can be granted.
ΒΆ 16 Moreover, we note defendant supports his construction of sections 11-501.1(c) and 2-118.1 by citing three cases involving inaccurate warnings. See People v. Estrada, 313 Ill.App.3d 245, 729 N.E.2d 851 (2000); People v. Engelbrecht, 225 Ill.App.3d 550, 588 N.E.2d 452 (1992); People v. Znaniecki, 181 Ill.App.3d 389, 537 N.E.2d 16 (1989)). In Johnson, 197 Ill.2d at 485, 758 N.E.2d at 809-10, our supreme court declined to follow the analytical premise in those three cases, which had held "the purpose of the warnings is to enable the motorist to make an informed choice."
A trial court's decision to grant a petition to rescind a motorist's statutory summary suspension of her or his driving privileges will not be reversed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Estrada, 313 Ill. App.3d 245, 248 (2000). Section 11-501.