2018 IL App (5th) 140223
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Chad Hayes struck and killed a 7-year-old bicyclist; officers investigated at the scene.
- Deputy Ash directed Bridgeport Chief Murray to drive Hayes to the hospital for blood and urine drug testing; Murray did so, remained with Hayes during the samples, and did not give the statutory "warning to motorists."
- Hospital lab reported initial presence of THC and amphetamine; Ash arrested Hayes only after receiving those initial results.
- Ash later (after consultation with the state’s attorney) had a second test taken two days later; those later ISP lab tests were negative.
- Trial court initially found tests consensual, then on reconsideration found no voluntary consent but held tests supported by probable cause; Hayes was convicted at a stipulated bench trial and sentenced.
- Appellate court reversed: it held the July 25 tests violated the Fourth Amendment (no valid consent, no applicable implied-consent statutory predicate), excluded the tests, and reversed the conviction for lack of admissible evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntary consent to blood/urine testing | Hayes voluntarily submitted (nonverbal acquiescence) by getting into officer vehicle and not objecting | No evidence he was asked or agreed; any acquiescence was not voluntary given custody-like setting | No voluntary consent; State failed to prove a clear, voluntary waiver of Fourth Amendment rights |
| Statutory implied consent (625 ILCS 5/11-501.6(a)) | Implied consent applies because Hayes was effectively under arrest/seized when tested even if tickets issued later | Statute requires arrest for a Vehicle Code violation before testing; no citation or arrest for such a violation existed when tests were taken | Implied consent did not apply; motorist must be under arrest for a Vehicle Code violation at time of testing to trigger the statute |
| Probable cause / exigent circumstances to justify warrantless blood draw | Officer had probable cause (history of drug offenses, accident circumstances) and exigency (dissipation) justified no warrant | Officer lacked probable cause before testing; exigency cannot substitute for lack of probable cause and McNeely rejects per se exigency in DUI cases | Appellate court found no probable cause to test pre-results and did not reach exigency; tests not justified under McNeely |
| Sufficiency of conviction without test results | Test results supported the aggravated-DUI conviction | Without the unlawfully obtained test results, prosecution lacks evidence to sustain conviction | Reversed conviction outright for insufficiency without the excluded test evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (warrant generally required; natural dissipation of alcohol is not per se exigency)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (blood draws are searches implicating significant privacy interests)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (consent induced by false claim of warrant is invalid)
- People v. Anthony, 198 Ill. 2d 194 (voluntariness of consent is judged by totality; waiver must be unmistakably clear)