People v. Cielak
2016 IL App (2d) 150944
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Kurt Cielak was arrested for DUI, taken to the East Dundee police station, and given the statutory warning at 12:43 a.m.; an evidentiary breath test was administered at 1:02 a.m. and showed an over-the-limit BAC.
- Officer John Haase testified he began the required 20-minute continuous observation before reading the warning and observed Cielak for about 29 minutes total; his police report noted only that a 20-minute observation occurred and the test was given at 1:02 a.m.
- Cielak filed a petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges, arguing the 20-minute observation requirement (20 Ill. Adm. Code 1286.310) was not substantially complied with because the officer allegedly began observation only after the warning.
- At the rescission hearing the State moved for a directed finding; the trial court granted it, finding the officer’s testimony credible and that the 20-minute observation requirement was satisfied.
- Cielak also argued a due-process/Brady violation because the State did not disclose that the officer would testify the observation began before the warning and that this testimony purportedly conflicted with the police report; the trial court rejected this claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 20-minute continuous observation requirement was substantially complied with | State: Officer Haase observed Cielak for 20 continuous minutes prior to administering the breath test | Cielak: Officer’s testimony was equivocal and report lacks start time, so observation may not have complied with regulation | Court: Credited officer’s testimony; substantial compliance found and defendant failed to make a prima facie case for rescission |
| Whether the 20-minute period must commence only after the statutory warning is read | State: Regulation does not require observation to start after warning; it must simply precede the test | Cielak: Checklist suggests sequence; therefore observation should start after warning | Court: Rejected sequence requirement; regulation’s plain language does not tie observation start to warning |
| Whether an officer must record the start time for the 20-minute observation in the report | State: No authority requires logging start time; absence of an entry is not dispositive | Cielak: Failure to document start time undermines credibility and compliance | Court: No legal duty to record start time; lack of entry did not establish noncompliance |
| Whether nondisclosure of officer’s expected testimony (alleged conflict with report) violated due process/Brady | State: No Brady violation; summary-suspension hearing is civil, and testimony was not inconsistent or material | Cielak: Failure to disclose impeaching evidence (conflict) prejudiced him | Court: Rejected Brady claim — testimony and report were consistent; any alleged inconsistency was not material to result |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wear, 229 Ill. 2d 545 (explains standard of review for rescission hearings)
- People v. Aleliunaite, 379 Ill. App. 3d 975 (prima facie burden to challenge breath-test reliability)
- People v. Bonutti, 338 Ill. App. 3d 333 (defining prima facie standard / statutory interpretation limits)
- People v. Barwig, 334 Ill. App. 3d 738 (grounds for attacking breath-test results)
- In re Summary Suspension of Driver’s License of Ramos, 155 Ill. App. 3d 374 (substantial compliance with observation requirement despite brief officer diversion)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence)