People v. Durden
90 N.E.3d 523
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- At ~1:12 a.m. officer Middleton observed multiple lane violations and stopped Durden.
- Middleton noted slurred speech, glossy/bloodshot eyes, a moderate odor of alcohol, difficulty handling his license/phone, and failed three field sobriety tests; Durden refused a portable breath test and was arrested for DUI.
- At 2:07 a.m. Middleton read the statutory "Warning to Motorist" and Durden awaited a breath test at the station.
- At 2:30 a.m. a breath test showed a BAC of 0.035; at 2:43 a.m. Officer Schloesser requested blood or urine testing and Durden refused, triggering summary suspension of his license.
- Durden petitioned to rescind the summary suspension, arguing officers lacked reasonable suspicion to request blood/urine testing after a low breath result and that Schloesser failed to reissue the Warning to Motorist before requesting additional testing.
- The trial court denied rescission; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable grounds to request blood/urine testing after a low breath result | Officers: totality of observations (erratic driving, odor, slurred speech, failed SFSTs, unusual statements) supported further testing for drugs | Durden: low BAC showed not intoxicated by alcohol; no reasonable suspicion to seek further testing | Held: Request was reasonable — officers could rely on collective observations that behavior was inconsistent with low BAC and therefore reasonably suspected drugs |
| Whether a second Warning to Motorist was required before requesting blood/urine testing | Officers: a single Warning given shortly before breath test was sufficient | Durden: needed a fresh warning before the later request for blood/urine | Held: No second warning required where administrative due process safeguards exist and the second request occurred within an hour of the initial warning |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d 246 (discusses probable cause standards and practical, factual analysis)
- People v. Wear, 229 Ill. 2d 545 (totality-of-circumstances test for probable cause)
- People v. Bascom, 286 Ill. App. 3d 124 (probable cause may be established from information collectively received by officers)
- People v. Goestenkors, 278 Ill. App. 3d 144 (erratic driving justifies investigatory stop; indicia of intoxication support arrest)
- People v. Fortney, 297 Ill. App. 3d 79 (glassy eyes, odor, failed SFSTs support probable cause)
- People v. Crocker, 267 Ill. App. 3d 343 (slurred speech, odor, failed SFSTs create probable cause)
- People v. Klyczek, 162 Ill. App. 3d 557 (officer must show reasonable evidence to justify additional testing after a low breath result)
- People v. Kirk, 291 Ill. App. 3d 610 (officers may request blood/urine after breath test where reasonable purpose exists for further testing)
- People v. Krosse, 262 Ill. App. 3d 509 (request for blood test after low breath reading is proper when officer suspects drug impairment)
- Burris v. State, ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 785 P.2d 332 (Okla. Ct. App.) (no second implied-consent warning needed when second test requested within a short time of the first and administrative safeguards apply)