People v. Clairmont
2011 IL App (2d) 100924
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- The People charged Kevin Clairmont and Inocencio Fernandez with DUI offenses following police stops where breath tests were administered.
- Each defendant moved in limine to bar breath-test results on the grounds that the machines were not certified as accurate under 20 Ill. Adm. Code 1286.230 because checks occurred more than 62 days apart.
- Clairmont’s machine was checked 60 days before his test and then again 11 days after, totaling 71 days between checks.
- Fernandez’s machine was checked 3 days before his test and then 62 days after, totaling 65 days between checks.
- The trial court granted both motions in limine; the State filed certificates of impairment and appealed; the cases were consolidated on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 1286.230(a) require checks every 62 days to admit breath-test results? | State argues 1286.200 governs admissibility and 1286.230 only sets testing procedures. | Clairmont and Fernandez contended 1286.230 must be complied with; failure renders results inadmissible. | Breath-test results inadmissible due to noncompliance with 1286.230. |
| How do 1286.200 and 1286.230 interact in determining admissibility? | State asserts 1286.200’s presumption suffices if last check was within 62 days. | Defendants contend 1286.230 governs continued accuracy and cannot be ignored. | Regulations harmonized; 1286.230 must be observed to ensure continued accuracy; noncompliance defeats admissibility. |
| Is noncompliance with 1286.230 cured by substantial compliance or rebutted by other evidence? | State could argue substantial compliance would permit admission. | Noncompliance cannot be cured; reliability must be preserved by strict adherence. | No substantial compliance sufficient here; noncompliance defeats admissibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hamilton, 118 Ill. 2d 153 (1987) (noncompliance with regulations renders results inadmissible)
- People v. Emrich, 113 Ill. 2d 343 (1986) (regulations render breath-test results inadmissible when not followed)
- People v. Bonutti, 212 Ill. 2d 182 (2004) (regulatory requirements are not mere technicalities; ensure reliability)
- People v. Rigsby, 383 Ill. App. 3d 818 (2008) (waiver issue; does not control admissibility framework for regulations)
- People v. Carpenter, 385 Ill. App. 3d 156 (2008) (regulations discussed in real-world context; distinguishable facts here)
- People v. Bishop, 354 Ill. App. 3d 549 (2004) (substantial compliance may rebut presumed unreliability in some cases)
- People v. Ebert, 401 Ill. App. 3d 958 (2010) (courts should rely on Department guidance for regulatory standards)
- In re Jaime P., 223 Ill. 2d 526 (2006) (interpretation of regulations in pari materia; harmony preferred)
- Arellano v. Department of Human Services, 402 Ill. App. 3d 665 (2010) (administrative regulations interpreted with ordinary meaning)