People v. Gocmen
2017 IL App (3d) 160025
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Ahmet Gocmen was charged with DUI (drugs) and improper lane use; his license was summarily suspended and he petitioned to rescind the suspension.
- Officer Beaty responded to a 11:10 a.m. call of an unconscious person in a running vehicle; paramedics were present and reported defendant was in/out of consciousness, sweating, had pinpoint pupils, a 144 bpm heart rate, and a fresh track mark.
- In the vehicle Beaty observed a Red Bull can with burn marks and brown residue; he performed a NARK swipe that turned blue (which he was taught indicated opiates), found an uncapped 1-mm syringe, and a small baggy of brown granular substance from defendant’s wallet (no lab result at hearing).
- Beaty had DUI alcohol training but testified he had no training or experience regarding DUI by drugs and had never performed a NARK test before.
- The trial court found the driver made a prima facie case and, after the State presented no evidence following denial of its directed finding motion, granted rescission because the officer lacked training/experience to reliably conclude the symptoms were drug-related rather than diabetic.
- The appellate court affirmed rescission, concluding the totality of the circumstances did not provide probable cause given the officer’s lack of drug-identification training and the plausible diabetic explanation; Justice Schmidt dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable grounds/probable cause to arrest for DUI (drugs) and justify statutory summary suspension | Residue testing positive for opiates, syringe, track marks, physical symptoms (pinpoint pupils, sweating, tachycardia) and vehicle placement supported probable cause | Officer lacked drug-specific training; defendant told officer he was diabetic; symptoms and syringe could be explained by diabetes; State presented no rebuttal evidence | No probable cause; rescission affirmed — officer’s lack of drug training/experience and alternative diabetic explanation defeated the State’s burden |
| Whether lay testimony can establish drug intoxication effects | State: officer testimony and circumstantial evidence suffice | Defense: effects of drugs are not commonly known; requires training/experience to opine on drug effects | Court: unlike alcohol, drug-effects testimony requires some training/experience; absent such training, officer’s opinion was unreliable |
| Burden allocation at statutory summary-suspension hearing | State: trial court erred in finding prima facie case for rescission | Defense: driver met prima facie; once done, burden shifted to State which failed to rebut | Court: driver established prima facie; State failed to present evidence after directed-finding denial, so rescission proper |
| Weight of field-test and physical evidence without lab confirmation | State: field test and paraphernalia are probative | Defense: field test potentially improper/misapplied and wallet substance lacked lab result; paraphernalia may be consistent with diabetes | Court: field test and untested wallet substance insufficient alone; without trained interpretation, evidence did not establish probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wear, 229 Ill. 2d 545 (probable cause standard and statutory summary-suspension burden shifting)
- People v. Shelton, 303 Ill. App. 3d 915 (drug-effect testimony requires training/experience)
- People v. Stout, 106 Ill. 2d 77 (officer’s training/experience in detection is relevant to reliability of probable-cause determination)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (probable cause deals with probabilities, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt)