2018 IL App (2d) 170863
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- At 1:40 a.m., Deputy Trent Raupp followed Amy Mueller’s Jeep after she made a lawful left turn; he observed no speeding or other traffic violations.
- Over the course of nearly a mile on a curved, twisting road, Raupp testified the Jeep’s tires touched the center (yellow) line once and the fog (white) line twice, but the vehicle never crossed either line and made no abrupt corrections.
- Based solely on those three momentary "touches," Raupp stopped the vehicle and arrested Mueller for DUI; he had an inoperable squad-car video system.
- Mueller moved to quash the arrest and suppress evidence, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion because touching a lane line does not violate the improper lane usage (ILU) statute.
- The trial court granted the motion and denied the State’s reconsideration; the court found touching a line is not leaving a lane, the curved road provided an innocent explanation, and Heien’s reasonable-mistake-of-law rule did not apply.
- The State appealed, arguing (1) touching a line violates section 11-709(a), (2) at minimum Raupp reasonably (but mistakenly) believed it did under Heien, and (3) alternatively, Mueller was driving erratically within her lane (Greco).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether merely touching a center or fog line constitutes ILU under 625 ILCS 5/11-709(a) | Touching a dividing/boundary line is driving outside the lane and violates ILU | ILU requires crossing into another lane; touching the line remains within the lane | Touching a line without crossing it does not satisfy ILU; statute construed to require deviation across the line |
| Whether Raupp had reasonable suspicion to stop based on the observed line touches | The three touches provided reasonable suspicion of ILU | The touches were momentary, on a curvy road, and had innocent explanation | No reasonable suspicion; the twists and darkness provided an obvious innocent explanation |
| Whether a reasonable mistake of law (Heien) by Raupp could validate the stop | Even if statute unclear, Raupp reasonably believed touching violated ILU, so stop valid | Statute is unambiguous; officers are on notice of rules of the road, so mistake was not reasonable | Heien inapplicable: statute unambiguous and officer should have known the rule; mistake not reasonable |
| Whether alternative theory of erratic driving (weaving within lane) supplied reasonable suspicion (Greco) | Even if not ILU, weaving/erratic driving within a lane can justify a stop | No evidence of weaving or abrupt corrections; argument was forfeited below | Forfeited and meritless on facts; court declined to consider it on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Smith, 172 Ill. 2d 289 (interpreting ILU as requiring crossing a lane line)
- People v. Leyendecker, 337 Ill. App. 3d 678 (discussing need to assess whether defendant crossed lane line)
- People v. Greco, 336 Ill. App. 3d 253 (erratic driving within a lane can supply reasonable suspicion)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (reasonable mistakes of law can, in limited circumstances, justify stops)
- State v. Neal, 362 P.3d 514 (court declined to treat touching a fog line as unlawful; supports crossing requirement)
- United States v. Colin, 314 F.3d 439 (cases holding that crossing, not merely touching, dividing lines supports stops)