People v. Armer
20 N.E.3d 521
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Armer charged with DUI under 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(1)-(2) after a single-vehicle rollover and his blood was drawn at a hospital without consent.
- Deputy Cross directed blood draw at hospital citing implied consent; third officers present but no warrant sought.
- Blood alcohol result 0.159; blood draw occurred around 1:15 a.m. following arrest at 12:45 a.m.
- Trial court suppressed the blood evidence, finding no exigency and lack of consent.
- State appealed, arguing exigent circumstances from accident processing and transport would dissipate alcohol; appellate court affirmed suppression and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless blood draw | Armer cites no exigency; law requires warrant. | Officer had probable cause and implied consent; no need for warrant. | No exigency; warrantless blood draw suppressed. |
| Whether implied-consent doctrine allowed warrantless draw | Implied consent permitted blood draw without consent or warrant. | Consent not given; implied consent cannot override Fourth Amendment protections. | Implied consent did not authorize warrantless draw in this context. |
| Whether suppression was proper under Fourth Amendment | Evidence admissible under exigent circumstances and implied consent. | Suppressing violated rights given no exigency. | Trial court correctly suppressed the blood-alcohol evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. Supreme Court 1966) (recognizes warrantless blood-draw permissible only under exigent circumstances with case-specific analysis)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 134 (U.S. Supreme Court 2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol is not per se exigency; totality of circumstances governs)