People v. Blazek
2022 IL App (2d) 210032-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background
- Late-night traffic stop after Lt. Lutz observed defendant’s Saab veer toward the center line, sway within the lane, and twice drive onto the shoulder; defendant pulled into a parking lot and Lutz initiated contact.
- During a roughly 20-minute recorded encounter, defendant volunteered that he had been drinking (variously “a couple of drinks,” “three tall boys,” and that he felt a “slight buzz”), gave inconsistent timing of consumption, and twice declined field sobriety tests.
- Lutz observed an odor of alcohol, glassy/bloodshot eyes, pauses and searching for words (including a 6–7 second pause reciting the alphabet), slurred/mumbled speech per his testimony, and pacing/stance suggestive of balance difficulty.
- The trial court suppressed one admission about a prior DUI (and muted two short video segments) on prejudicialness/Miranda grounds, and granted the State’s motion in limine barring metabolization/absorption testimony without an expert.
- A jury convicted Blazek of DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2)) and improper lane usage; he was sentenced to jail, fines, conditional discharge, and DUI-related requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for DUI | Officer observations, defendant’s admissions, odor, appearance, speech pauses, and refusal to test supported a finding of impairment | Video does not show slurred speech; astigmatism could explain lane deviations; isolated competent driving and no completed field tests | Affirmed—viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational jury could find defendant impaired and unable to drive safely |
| Motion to quash arrest / suppress for lack of probable cause | Lutz had facts (driving behavior and admissions) to support probable cause | Arrest lacked probable cause; evidence should be suppressed | Forfeited—defendant’s filed motion and arguments aimed at Miranda/involuntary statements, not lack of probable cause; issue not preserved for appeal |
| Motion in limine re: alcohol metabolization testimony | Metabolization/retrograde extrapolation is scientific and requires expert testimony; bar lay speculation | Lutz should be allowed to testify as a lay witness about timing of consumption and his basic understanding of absorption/metabolism | Forfeited for lack of posttrial challenge; on merits, court reasonably barred scientific expert-level testimony but did not prevent lay testimony about timing of defendant’s statements regarding drinking |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings)
- People v. Collins, 214 Ill. 2d 206 (Ill. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Sturgess, 364 Ill. App. 3d 107 (Ill. App. 2006) (officer testimony alone can support DUI conviction)
- People v. Gordon, 378 Ill. App. 3d 626 (Ill. App. 2008) (definition of "under the influence" for DUI)
- People v. Pitman, 211 Ill. 2d 502 (Ill. 2004) (standard of review for suppression rulings: mixed questions; de novo ultimate review)
- People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (Ill. 1988) (preservation rule requiring objection at trial and written posttrial motion)
- People v. Crosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262 (Ill. 2008) (preservation applied to suppression claims not raised in posttrial motion)
- People v. Blankenship, 353 Ill. App. 3d 322 (Ill. App. 2004) (cannot raise suppression grounds on appeal that were not argued below)
- People v. Edwards, 343 Ill. App. 3d 1168 (Ill. App. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)