People v. Motzko
78 N.E.3d 517
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- On Aug. 11, 2015, Motzko crashed his motorcycle; an officer (Bishoff) responded and cited him for DUI and other offenses.
- A hospital security guard told the officer he saw Motzko speed and smelled alcohol; Bishoff did not further question the guard or call him to testify.
- At the hospital Bishoff administered an HGN test (noting five clues); Motzko told him he was blind in one eye and had hit his head in the crash; Bishoff did not account for possible head injury or visual impairment when testing.
- Bishoff arrested Motzko for DUI citing HGN results, odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, admission to drinking, and the single-vehicle crash.
- The trial court granted Motzko’s motion to suppress and later rescinded the statutory summary suspension; the State’s motions to reconsider were denied and the State appealed the suppression ruling. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest for DUI | Odor of alcohol, admission to drinking, HGN clues, accident, security-guard observations supported arrest | Odor/admission/eyes/accident insufficient; HGN was unreliable here and officer not credible | No probable cause; suppression affirmed |
| Admissibility/weight of HGN evidence | HGN shows intoxication/over .08 | HGN only indicates alcohol consumption; officer mischaracterized test and lacked proper foundation | Officer misinterpreted HGN; State failed to lay proper foundation; court gave little weight to HGN |
| Admissibility of postarrest refusal at suppression hearing (625 ILCS 5/11-501.2(c)) | Refusal is admissible in any proceeding and should be considered | Refusal is admissible only if testing was requested pursuant to probable cause and is irrelevant to whether probable cause existed at arrest | Refusal inadmissible at suppression hearing because officer lacked probable cause and postarrest conduct was irrelevant |
| Jurisdiction to grant rescission after State appealed suppression order | Filing appeal divested trial court of jurisdiction to grant rescission | Summary-suspension rescission hearing is civil and separate; trial court retained jurisdiction to decide rescission | Trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction; rescission proper and appeal did not bar the hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McKown, 236 Ill. 2d 278 (2010) (HGN admissible to show alcohol consumption but not to establish a specific BAC or level of impairment; proper foundation required)
- People v. Stehman, 203 Ill. 2d 26 (2002) (trial court may grant suppression where State's sole witness lacks credibility)
- People v. Boomer, 325 Ill. App. 3d 206 (2001) (odor of alcohol and involvement in an accident are insufficient alone to establish probable cause for DUI)
- People v. Gerke, 123 Ill. 2d 85 (1988) (statutory summary-suspension proceedings are separate from the criminal DUI prosecution)