People v. Cielak
68 N.E.3d 902
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Kurt Cielak was arrested for DUI, taken to the East Dundee police station, read the statutory "warning to motorists" at ~12:43 a.m., and given a breath test at 1:02 a.m., which showed an illegal BAC and produced a summary suspension of his driving privileges.
- Officer John Haase testified he began a continuous 20-minute observation period before reading the warning (while completing paperwork), observed Cielak for a total of ~29 minutes, and administered the breath test after the 20-minute window.
- Haase's police report did not state when the observation period began but did record that the test was given "after the matter of a 20-minute observation period" at 1:02 a.m.; the report was not admitted into evidence at the rescission hearing.
- Cielak petitioned to rescind the summary suspension, arguing (1) the 20-minute continuous observation requirement (20 Ill. Adm. Code 1286.310) was not substantially complied with, and (2) he was denied due process because the State did not disclose that Haase would testify the observation began before the warning, an alleged inconsistency with the report.
- The trial court granted the State's directed finding, concluding Cielak failed to make a prima facie case for rescission; the court accepted Haase's testimony that the 20-minute observation occurred and rejected the argument that the observation must begin after the warning.
- This appeal challenges (a) substantial compliance with the 20-minute observation requirement and (b) an alleged Brady/due-process nondisclosure related to Haase's testimony.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Cielak's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 20-minute continuous observation requirement was substantially complied with | Haase observed Cielak continuously for 20 minutes (before and after the warning); court may credit witness credibility | Haase's testimony was equivocal and his report lacks a start time, undermining reliability of the observation | Affirmed: court credited Haase; substantial compliance found and Cielak failed to make a prima facie case |
| Whether the 20-minute period must start only after the warning is read | Regulation requires 20 minutes prior to obtaining a breath sample; it does not tie start to reading the warning | The DUI checklist orders warning before observation, implying the observation must begin after the warning | Held: regulation does not require observation to begin after warning; checklist is nonbinding guidance |
| Whether officer had a duty to record the observation start time | No statutory requirement to record start time; absence of an entry is not per se invalidating | Officer's failure to document the start time shows noncompliance and impeaches his testimony | Held: no authority requires recording the start time; omission is not dispositive |
| Whether nondisclosure of Haase's expected testimony violated due process/Brady | Even if Brady applied, Haase's testimony was not inconsistent or material; any discrepancy would not undermine outcome | State failed to disclose that Haase would testify observation began before the warning, which impeaches the report and is material | Held: Brady inapplicable to civil rescission proceeding; in any event no material inconsistency and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wear, 229 Ill. 2d 545 (2008) (standard of review for rescission hearings mirrors suppression hearing review)
- People v. Aleliunaite, 379 Ill. App. 3d 975 (2008) (defendant must make prima facie case to challenge breath-test results)
- People v. Bonutti, 338 Ill. App. 3d 333 (2003) (prima facie equivalence to preponderance standard)
- People v. Barwig, 334 Ill. App. 3d 738 (2002) (grounds to attack breath-test: improper administration, untrustworthy results, or regulatory violation)
- In re Summary Suspension of Driver’s License of Ramos, 155 Ill. App. 3d 374 (1987) (substantial compliance with observation requirement despite temporary diversion of officer's attention)
- In re Nicholas L., 407 Ill. App. 3d 1061 (2011) (equivocal expert testimony can render a finding against the manifest weight of the evidence)