- 14 -
imply that because section 11-501.1(c) of the Code (625 ILCS
5/11-501.1(c) (West 2006)) requires the police to provide him
(defendant) a warning if he "refuses" to comply with a request to
submit to a Breathalyzer test, he has a statutory right to
refuse. However, this argument is devoid of merit, given that
section 11-501.1(c) of the Code does not confer any additional
rights on a defendant. Instead, section 11-501.1(c) merely
outlines the statutory consequences imposed on a person who is
arrested for DUI if that person refuses to submit to a
Breathalyzer test. (See also Jones, 214 Ill. 2d at 199-200, 824
N.E.2d at 246, holding that section 11-501.2(c)(2) of the Code
(625 ILCS 5/11-501.2(c)(2) (West 2002)) similarly does not grant
a DUI arrestee the right to refuse chemical testing.) Under
defendant's theory, he would have a statutory right to commit
theft simply because our legislature has enacted laws which
inform him of the penalties for doing so. Or that he has a
statutory right not to file his state income-tax return because
the legislature has provided a penalty for that failure.
B. Defendant's Claim That the Trial Court
Erred by Admitting Irrelevant Evidence
Defendant also argues that the trial court erred by
admitting irrelevant evidence. Specifically, defendant contends
that the court improperly admitted evidence that the arresting
officer did not routinely arrest everyone he stopped. We dis-agree.
