2020 IL App (3d) 170163
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- On March 13, 2016 defendant Ryan Deroo crashed his grandmother’s vehicle after losing control; an eyewitness and first responders placed a single male at the driver’s side and paramedics removed that person from the driver’s door area.
- Defendant was transported to the hospital; blood was drawn for medical treatment and tested by the hospital lab, producing a serum ethanol result of 247 mg/dL (converted to whole blood 0.209).
- Deputy Woodthorp spoke with defendant in the ER, issued a DUI citation, asked for consent to a police blood draw (which was refused), and was informed by hospital staff of the hospital test result; no officer ordered or directed the hospital blood draw.
- Defendant moved to suppress the hospital blood-test results as an illegal warrantless search (arguing hospital acted as state agent); the trial court granted the State’s directed finding at the suppression hearing and denied suppression.
- At trial the State presented eyewitness, paramedic, nurse, treating physician, and toxicology-conversion testimony; the jury convicted Deroo of aggravated DUI, aggravated DUI BAC, and aggravated DWLR; sentences were imposed and Deroo appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Deroo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was the directed finding at the suppression hearing improper; was the hospital blood draw a State search? | Hospital blood draw was private medical care, not a government search; Deroo failed to make a prima facie showing of state agency. | Hospital staff acted as state agents (police presence, disclosure of results), so the blood draw was a warrantless search violating the Fourth Amendment. | Court affirmed: no state action; blood draw was medical treatment, not police-directed, so suppression properly denied. |
| 2) Was the evidence sufficient to prove driving and BAC beyond a reasonable doubt? | Eyewitness, paramedic, deputy, owner testimony and hospital blood (converted to whole blood) established defendant was driver and BAC > 0.08. | No witness actually saw Deroo driving; hospital blood result lacked chain-of-custody/foundational proof so BAC proof was insufficient. | Court affirmed: viewing evidence in State’s favor, sufficient proof Deroo was driver; blood evidence and conversion established BAC. |
| 3) Were the hospital blood-test results admissible over defendant’s hearsay/business-records objection (Rule 803(6) v. 625 ILCS 5/11‑501.4)? | Section 11‑501.4 authorizes admission of emergency-room hospital blood-test lab reports when statutory foundations are met; witness testimony satisfied those foundations. | Illinois Rule of Evidence 803(6) forbids admitting medical records as business records in criminal cases; the rule controls and conflicts with the statute, so the blood results were inadmissible. | Court admitted the results: majority followed People v. Hutchison and held §11‑501.4 supplies the specific statutory exception and the hospital witnesses provided adequate foundation; dissent would have held Rule 803(6) controls and would reverse DUI convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- People v. Brooks, 2017 IL 121413 (burden and standards at suppression hearings; private‑actor tests)
- People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237 (sufficiency review standard)
- People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455 (distinguishing admissibility challenges from sufficiency challenges)
- People v. Hutchison, 2013 IL App (1st) 102332 (First District holding that §11‑501.4 permits admission of hospital blood-test reports despite Rule 803(6))
- People v. Peterson, 2017 IL 120331 (supreme court rules control over conflicting statutes on court procedure)
- People v. Caballero, 102 Ill. 2d 23 (trial‑record evidence may be considered on appeal to affirm suppression rulings)