People v. Howard
205 N.E.3d 908
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- Howard was found passed out behind the wheel of a running car in a Speedway gas-station parking lot; officers detected a strong odor of alcohol, he admitted drinking five beers, and he failed to complete field-sobriety testing.
- He was arrested for DUI and issued a statutory summary suspension under the implied-consent statute for refusal/failure to complete chemical testing.
- Howard petitioned to rescind the suspension, arguing the Speedway parking lot was not a "public highway" and thus the implied-consent statute did not apply (so officers lacked reasonable grounds to arrest).
- At the rescission hearing, two officers testified they did not know who owned or maintained the lot but that it had two access points to public roads; Howard testified he drove into the lot and had been returning from a bar.
- The trial court granted rescission, finding insufficient evidence of public maintenance and noting no testimony of impairment; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant met his burden to make a prima facie showing that the Speedway parking lot was not a "public highway" within the meaning of the implied-consent statute | Relwani requires the defendant to produce affirmative evidence that the lot was not publicly maintained; here officers testified they did not know who maintained the lot, so defendant failed to meet burden | The lot was privately owned/maintained (not a public highway); officers never saw it maintained by the Village; defendant presented facts to shift burden to State | Reversed trial court. Appellate court held Howard failed to make a prima facie showing: officers' testimony that they did not know who maintained the lot is not affirmative evidence that it was privately maintained; the Village credit-card use is weak and inconclusive evidence |
| Whether the State had to present evidence of impairment once defendant challenged the basis for the suspension | State argued defendant focused only on public/private status and did not contest impairment, so State was not required to rebut impairment | Defendant argued lack of evidence of impairment supported rescission because officers lacked reasonable grounds | Appellate court held the State did not need to rebut impairment because Howard produced no evidentiary support that he was not impaired; defendant had to present affirmative evidence on location issue and did not do so |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Relwani, 2019 IL 123385 (Ill. 2019) (defendant must produce affirmative evidence that a lot is not publicly maintained to make a prima facie showing)
- People v. Helt, 384 Ill. App. 3d 285 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (a parking lot that is publicly maintained and open to the public for vehicular travel qualifies as a "highway")
- People v. Culbertson, 258 Ill. App. 3d 294 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (municipally maintained property can be a public highway for implied-consent purposes)
- People v. Kozak, 130 Ill. App. 2d 334 (Ill. App. Ct. 1970) (evidence that a lot was not government-maintained supported finding it was not a public highway)
- People v. Montelongo, 152 Ill. App. 3d 518 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (posted/fenced private lot and officer testimony about nonpublic maintenance supported private-lot finding)