2012 IL App (3d) 100199
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant was arrested for DUI on May 12, 2009 after an on-scene crash and odor of alcohol observed by officer.
- Secretary of State issued a 12-month statutory summary license suspension pending petition to rescind.
- Defendant petitioned to rescind arguing improper arrest, lack of reasonable grounds, and improper warnings under 11-501.1.
- Defendant refused consent to blood draw; officer forcibly drew blood at hospital with multiple staff holding her.
- Blood test result showed BAC of 0.285; officers later amended sworn report, then the court reversed that amendment.
- Trial court granted motion to suppress blood test results and granted petition to rescind suspension; State appealed on three issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether force to obtain blood was authorized under Vehicle Code | State: force may be lawful under implied authority when consent is refused | Farris: statute does not authorize force to obtain samples; Jones v. Illinois governs | No; force not authorized under Vehicle Code; suppress |
| Whether the officer’s sworn report can be amended to reflect refusal | State: amendment should be allowed to reflect facts | Farris: amendment would prejudice and surprise; not timely | No abuse of discretion; amendment denied |
| Whether petition to rescind should be granted given suppression and report | State: rescission inappropriate because evidence suppressed | Farris: correct to rescind due to suppression and lack of reliable testing data | Yes; petition to rescind affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jones, 214 Ill.2d 187 (Ill. 2005) (holding no force to obtain samples absent consent; clarifies force not permitted; death/injury exception noted)
- Badoud, 122 Ill.2d 50 (Ill. 1988) (officer sworn reports in summary suspension proceedings treated like civil pleadings; amendments considered)
- Pollitt, 2011 IL App (2d) 091247 (Ill. App. 2d 2011) (amendments to officer reports discussed in post-judgment context)
- Krause, 484 N.W.2d 347 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992) (approved objective-reasonableness balancing of force in compelled samples)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (permits blood testing when necessary to avoid dissipation of alcohol; justification for testing)
- Jones, 214 Ill.2d 187 (Ill. 2005) (statutory testing exists; no right to refuse; force not authorized)
- Worthington, 138 Idaho 470, 65 P.3d 211 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002) (forced tests discussed in authority mix)
- Lanier, 452 N.W.2d 144 (S.D. 1990) (state authority to compel testing discussed)
- Clary, 196 Ariz. 610, 2 P.3d 1255 (Ariz. App. 2000) (forced blood draws cases cited as support for reasonableness)
- Carleton v. Superior Court, 170 Cal. App. 3d 1182, 216 Cal. Rptr. 890 (Cal. App. 1985) (case cited on compelled samples)