2014 IL App (4th) 140445
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Ryan J. Chiaravalle was arrested for DUI and high BAC after field tests and transported to the county jail for an Intoxilyzer breath test.
- Corporal Brad Baird administered the test; he said he and defendant were alone in a room for the 20-minute observation period, after Baird had searched defendant and found no alcohol or mouthwash.
- During the 20 minutes Baird completed paperwork with his back to defendant for portions of the time, turning around "every few minutes," and later conversed with defendant; he did not hear or see vomiting, regurgitation, or other signs of contamination.
- At a summary-suspension hearing a judge concluded Baird failed to "continuously observe" the defendant and rescinded the administrative suspension; a different trial judge adopted that reasoning and granted defendant's motion in limine to exclude the breath-test result.
- The State appealed, arguing the officer substantially complied with the observation requirement by using all his senses and any deviation was de minimis; the appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 20-minute "continuous observation" requirement mandates unbroken visual line-of-sight | Observation may be satisfied by the officer using all senses (sight, hearing, smell) so long as officer is positioned to detect contamination | "Continuously observe" requires continuous visual line-of-sight; turning his back violated the rule | Observation need not be unbroken visual surveillance; substantial compliance via use of all senses is acceptable |
| Whether Baird substantially complied with §1286.310(a) during the 20-minute period | Baird was in same room, searched defendant, periodically checked, heard no signs of contamination, and any noncompliance was de minimis | Baird had his back to defendant for minutes and thus failed to comply | Baird substantially complied; failure to maintain continuous visual gaze was de minimis and did not render the test unreliable |
| Whether breath-test results were admissible after alleged observation violation | Breath result admissible if foundation shows substantial compliance with administrative rules | Breath result inadmissible because foundation failed where continuous line-of-sight absent | Breath-test results admissible; trial court erred in excluding them |
| Standard of review for exclusion of breath-test evidence | Question of law (application of regulations) reviewed de novo | Same | De novo review applied; appellate court reversed trial court's exclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ebert, 401 Ill. App. 3d 958 (affirming that minor deviations from observation rule are de minimis when defendant’s conduct shows no contamination)
- People v. Bergman, 253 Ill. App. 3d 369 (observation requirement satisfied where defendant remained within officer’s line of sight or peripheral vision)
- In re Summary Suspension of Driver’s License of Ramos, 155 Ill. App. 3d 374 (short periods of officer inattention while remaining in proximity do not defeat substantial compliance)
- People v. Bonutti, 212 Ill. 2d 182 (purpose of observation rule is to ensure only accurate breath-alcohol tests are admitted)