Code, shall be deemed to be operating an uninsured motor vehicle.” 625 ILCS 5/3—707(b) (West
2008). Because defendant failed to comply with Hucker’s request for evidence of liability insurance,
she was deemed to be operating an uninsured motor vehicle at the time of the stop.
Because (1) defendant was driving with a suspended license (see 625 ILCS 5/6—303(a)
(West 2008)) and (2) defendant was deemed to be operating an uninsured motor vehicle (see 625
ILCS 5/3—707(b) (West 2008)), section 6—303(e) of the Vehicle Code required the officer to
impound the vehicle (625 ILCS 5/6—303(e) (West 2008)). Section 6—303(e) provides in relevant
part that a person who is driving with a suspended or revoked license and “who is also in violation
of Section 7—601 of this Code relating to mandatory insurance requirements, in addition to other
penalties imposed under this Section, shall have his or her motor vehicle immediately impounded by
the arresting law enforcement of icer.” 625 ILCS 5/6—303(e) (West 2008).
Pointing out that the car was insured but did not contain an insurance card, defendant argues
that she did not violate the insurance policy mandate of section 7—601, but instead violated the
insurance card mandate ofsection 7—602. Because section 6—303(e) refersto a violation ofsection
7—601 and not section 7—602, defendant argues that the impoundment was not statutorily
authorized. We disagree. When a driver is stopped with a suspended license, section 6—303(e)
requires impoundment for a “violation of Section 7—601 of this Code relating to mandatory
insurance requirements.” (Emphasis added.) 625 ILCS 5/6—303(e) (West 2008). Because she did
not show evidence of insurance (see 625 ILCS 5/3—707(b) (West 2008)), defendant was deemed
to be operating an uninsured vehicle, and operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance is a
violation of section 7—601. Thus, showing evidence of liability insurance is among the mandatory
insurance requirements embodied in section 7—601.