People v. Acevedo
74 N.E.3d 95
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- On March 5, 2015 Damien Acevedo was arrested for driving under the influence after a crash; he petitioned to rescind the statutory summary suspension on March 16, 2015 alleging the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds.
- The trial court ordered production of the squad-car DVD; the DVD provided by the officer was cracked and later the in-car recording had been recorded over, so the video was unavailable.
- The court found a discovery violation and, as a sanction, imputed that Acevedo had met his prima facie burden and shifted the burden to the State to show cause for sustaining the suspension; the court did not bar the officer’s testimony.
- Trooper Carrie Arvidson testified she smelled alcohol, observed the defendant stumbling and swaying, the defendant admitted to drinking a few beers, field sobriety tests were failed, and a portable breath test (PBT) read 0.183; Acevedo testified he was not impaired and cited head trauma from the crash.
- The trial court denied rescission, finding the officer’s testimony (including the PBT result) and other observations established probable cause; Acevedo’s motion to reconsider was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officer should have been barred from testifying as a sanction for the lost squad-car video | State: court’s chosen sanction was proper and tailored | Acevedo: officer’s testimony about matters on the missing video should be barred | Court: no abuse of discretion; shifting burden to State and imputing prima facie case was an appropriate sanction; testimony need not be barred |
| Admissibility/foundation for the PBT result | State: PBT admissible to show probable cause; sufficient foundation was laid | Acevedo: foundation for PBT was inadequate under Orth and regulatory requirements, so result should be excluded | Court: trooper’s PBT foundation was deficient under applicable requirements, so PBT should have been excluded — but rejection harmless because conviction affirmed on other evidence |
| Whether reasonable grounds/probable cause existed to arrest | State: officer’s observations and tests provided probable cause | Acevedo: discovery sanction raised doubt about officer’s basis for arrest, including PBT | Court: even without the PBT, the officer’s observations (odor, admission of drinking, poor balance, failed field sobriety tests, crash) established probable cause; rescission denied |
| Standard of review for sanctions and evidentiary rulings | State: deferential review | Acevedo: N/A | Court: abuse of discretion standard applies; no abuse here |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kladis, 2011 IL 110920 (Illinois Supreme Court) (upheld barring testimony for lost squad-car video where narrowly tailored sanction appropriate)
- People v. Orth, 124 Ill. 2d 326 (Ill. 1988) (foundation required for Breathalyzer admissibility)
- People v. Smith, 172 Ill. 2d 289 (Ill. 1996) (burden-shifting framework in summary suspension hearings)
- People v. Rozela, 345 Ill. App. 3d 217 (Ill. App. 2003) (PBT admissible to show probable cause; discussion of foundational requirements)
- People v. Ehley, 381 Ill. App. 3d 937 (Ill. App. 2008) (statutory grounds to rescind include officer lacking reasonable grounds)
- People v. Fonner, 385 Ill. App. 3d 531 (Ill. App. 2008) (defines reasonable grounds as synonymous with probable cause)