People v. Gocmen
2017 IL App (3d) 160025
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Ahmet Gocmen was arrested for DUI (drugs) after being found semiconscious in his running vehicle; his license was summarily suspended and he petitioned to rescind the suspension.
- Officer Beaty, the sole witness, testified he had DUI alcohol training but no training or experience in DUI of drugs or distinguishing drug effects from medical conditions.
- At the scene Beaty observed a cut/burned Red Bull can with brown residue that he tested with a NARK swipe (which he said indicated opiates), a used 1ml syringe on the seat, and paramedics reported pinpoint pupils, sweating, a heart rate of 144, a fresh track mark, and in-and-out consciousness.
- Defendant told the officer he was diabetic; there were no field sobriety tests, no lab/drug-test results admitted at the rescission hearing, and the State presented no additional evidence after the court denied its directed finding motion.
- The trial court granted rescission, concluding the officer lacked training to attribute the condition to drugs rather than a diabetic episode; the appellate majority affirmed. Justice Schmidt dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable grounds/probable cause to arrest for DUI (drugs) | The totality (syringe, track marks, residue testing positive for opiates, paramedic-reported symptoms) justified probable cause | Officer lacked training/experience to distinguish drug effects from a diabetic reaction; State offered no rebuttal evidence | Rescission affirmed — no probable cause where arresting officer had no drug-identification training and State failed to rebut a prima facie showing |
| Whether lay testimony is sufficient to attribute observed symptoms to drug intoxication | State: officer need not be an expert to form reasonable belief | Defense: effects of drugs are not commonly known; expert-level training/experience is needed to reliably opine on drug impairment | Court: unlike alcohol, drug effects require training/experience to form reliable probable-cause conclusions; Shelton principle applicable |
| Whether the NARK swipe and residue provided reliable evidence of drug use | State relied on NARK test positive for opiates as indicia of drug use | Defense and court questioned test relevance and correctness (Cocaine-ID test vs. opiates) and chain/validity at hearing | Court found test use/results insufficient and possibly inappropriate; did not supply probable cause without further supporting evidence |
| Burden shift and sufficiency of State's proof at rescission hearing | State contended rescission inappropriate absent stronger defense proof | Defense showed prima facie case via officer testimony (including defendant’s claim of diabetes); once burden shifted, State produced no evidence | Court: driver established prima facie case; State failed to rebut; rescission proper |
Key Cases Cited
- First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128 (1976) (appellate court may decide case on merits despite absence of appellee brief when record/simple)
- People v. Stout, 106 Ill. 2d 77 (1985) (officer’s experience and training in detection of controlled substances bears on reliability of probable-cause determination)
- People v. Shelton, 303 Ill. App. 3d 915 (1999) (effects of drugs not commonly known; training/experience necessary to understand drug effects)
- People v. Vernor, 66 Ill. App. 3d 152 (1978) (distinguishing narcotic opiates from cocaine)
- People v. Wear, 229 Ill. 2d 545 (2008) (burden-shifting framework at statutory summary-suspension rescission hearings)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (probable cause defined by practical probabilities; less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014) (Fourth Amendment accommodates reasonable mistakes by officers)