• 2 Following that decision reviewing courts have found implicit in the court's ruling the requirement that any objection to the sufficiency of a uniform traffic ticket be made prior to trial. ( People v. Sikes (1986), 141 Ill. App.3d 773, 491 N.E.2d 168; People v. Domovich (1980), 91 Ill. App.3d 870, 414 N.E.2d 290; see also People v. Schultz (1988), 173 Ill. App.3d 738, 527 N.E.2d 984.) This conclusion reflects the court's recognition of the peculiar circumstances attendant to the issuance of traffic tickets, and the fact that they are drawn without the care and precision required in charging instruments alleging more serious offenses (see People v. Brausam (1967), 83 Ill. App.2d 354, 227 N.E.2d 533; Schultz, 173 Ill. App.3d 738, 527 N.E.2d 984), yet protect the rights of the accused in this narrow class of cases to demand the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be apprised of the nature and elements of the offense charged ( Domovich, 91 Ill. App.3d 870, 414 N.E.2d 290; see also Tammen, 40 Ill.2d 76, 237 N.E.2d 517).
We have recognized that prosecutions based on uniform traffic tickets are sui generis and must be distinguished from those based on "criminal complaints, indictments, and informations." Village of Huntley v. Oltmann, 242 Ill. App.3d 725, 727 (1993); see also People v. Schultz, 173 Ill. App.3d 738, 742 (1988); People v. Domovich, 91 Ill. App.3d 870, 873 (1980). As the defendant notes, the State has cited no cases applying Tammen to a charging instrument other than a uniform traffic ticket.
As we have stated with respect to the contention that the complaints were not verified, any objection to the sufficiency of a uniform traffic ticket must be raised before trial or it is waived. ( People v. Boras (1990), 195 Ill. App.3d 696, 700, 553 N.E.2d 43; People v. Schultz (1988), 173 Ill. App.3d 738, 742, 527 N.E.2d 984 ("absent a pretrial request for a bill of particulars or a pretrial objection to the sufficiency of a uniform traffic ticket, the ticket 'must be considered sufficient' ").) Moreover, this defect, unlike the defect involving verification, was apparent on its face when the ticket was issued. The case of People v. Sikes (1986), 141 Ill. App.3d 773, 491 N.E.2d 168, is on point.
According to the numerous cases following Tammen, such objections to facial defects in traffic complaints were insufficient as they were not raised prior to trial. Askeland, 166 Ill. App.3d at 80; People v. Schultz (1988), 173 Ill. App.3d 738, 743; People v. Sikes (1986), 141 Ill. App.3d 773, 777; Domovich, 91 Ill. App.3d at 874. In the present case, at issue are: (1) the incorrect date of the offense on the face of two of the complaints, corresponding to subsection (4) of section 111-3(a); and (2) the lack of an indication of subsection of the ordinance section of one of the complaints, corresponding to subsection (2) of section 111-3(a).