People v. Bruni
406 Ill. App. 3d 165
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- Defendant John P. Bruni was arrested for DUI at a sobriety checkpoint.
- Bruni refused chemical testing, triggering a statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges.
- Officer Pogvara testified Bruni’s license was valid and insurance current; Bruni claimed he had been at a karaoke party and won a contest.
- Pogvara detected a faint odor of alcohol and noted Bruni's eyes were glossy; Bruni admitted having one beer and performed field sobriety tests after exiting the vehicle.
- Bruni challenged the checkpoint detention as unreasonably long; the court analyzed the duration under Sitz and related precedent and found no unreasonable prolongation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the checkpoint detention unreasonably prolonged? | Bruni contends the period before testing exceeded reasonableness. | Bruni argues the detention was longer than allowed and violated the Fourth Amendment. | No unreasonable prolongation; detention not shown to be excessive. |
| Was there reasonable articulable suspicion to justify field sobriety testing? | Officer's observations (odor, glossy eyes, beer admission) created suspicion. | No basis for suspicion of intoxication from those factors. | Yes, there was reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct field sobriety testing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (checkpoint intrusion balanced against public interests; initial stop permissible without individualized suspicion)
- People v. Bartley, 109 Ill.2d 273 (1985) (limits on duration of roadblock stops; brief detention favored)
- People v. Hood, 213 Ill.2d 244 (2004) (eyes described as glassy/bloodshot; corroborates observational basis for suspicion)
- Village of Lincolnshire v. Kelly, 389 Ill.App.3d 881 (2009) (field sobriety testing based on odor and admission in routine stop context)
- Commonwealth v. Bazinet, 76 Mass.App.Ct. 908 (2010) (odor of alcohol as clue for further screening at checkpoint)
- Rizzo v. Mich. App., 243 Mich.App. 151 (2000) (strong odor of intoxicant supports reasonable suspicion for testing)
- Thompson v. State, 303 Ark. 407 (1990) (consensual encounter followed by reasonable suspicion after odor observed)