People v. Clairmont
961 N.E.2d 914
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Clairmont charged with DUI offenses, including aggravated DUI while suspended; breath test administered after stop.
- Fernandez charged with multiple DUI-related offenses, including counts alleging 0.08 BAC; breath test administered after stop.
- Both defendants moved in limine to bar breath-test results due to failure to certify/check machines within 62 days as required by 20 Ill. Adm.Code 1286.230.
- Stipulations showed Clairmont's device was checked 60 days before and 11 days after testing (71 days total) and Fernandez's device 3 days before and 62 days after (65 days total).
- Trial court granted the motions in limine; State filed certificates of impairment and appealed; cases consolidated on appeal.
- Issue on appeal is whether noncompliance with 1286.230 makes breath-test results inadmissible despite 1286.200 provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether noncompliance with 1286.230 renders breath-test results inadmissible | State: 1286.200 governs admissibility; 1286.230 is not about admissibility | Clairmont/Fernandez: 1286.230 mandatory; noncompliance renders tests inadmissible | Yes; noncompliance renders test results inadmissible; affirmed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Emrich, 113 Ill.2d 343 (1986) (noncompliance with regulations yields inadmissible results)
- People v. Bonutti, 212 Ill.2d 182 (2004) (regulation 1286.230 must be adhered to; reliability focus)
- People v. Hamilton, 118 Ill.2d 153 (1987) (regulations must be followed to ensure reliability of results)
- People v. Ebert, 401 Ill.App.3d 958 (2010) (courts defer to State Police standards for breath testing)
- People v. Carpenter, 385 Ill.App.3d 156 (2008) (distinguishes regulatory compliance context from broader admissibility)