People v. Olsen
40 N.E.3d 235
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant Corey E. Olsen was stopped for speeding and improper lane use and charged with two counts of DUI (Aug. 12, 2012).
- Officer Eric Longenecker's patrol car had functioning in‑car audio/video; he recorded the stop but positioned his car behind defendant on a narrow gravel shoulder.
- For safety, Longenecker conducted field sobriety tests in front of Olsen’s vehicle where the patrol car camera had no clear line of sight, so the tests were not visible on video.
- Olsen moved to suppress the officer’s observations from the field sobriety tests as a discovery sanction under section 30(c) of the State Police Act for failure to record; the trial court granted the motion.
- The State appealed, arguing section 30(c) does not prescribe an evidentiary remedy and that no discovery violation occurred because no recording was lost or destroyed.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the sanction was an abuse of discretion: section 30(c) is directory and no discovery violation was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression of officer's testimony was warranted as a sanction for failing to record field sobriety tests | Section 30(c) noncompliance warrants sanction to prevent incentive not to record | Officer failed to preserve evidence that should have been recorded; suppression appropriate | Reversed: sanctions unwarranted — no discovery violation and no statutory remedy compels suppression |
| Whether §30(c) creates an evidentiary exclusion remedy for noncompliance | §30(c) mandates recording and should bar testimony when recordings are missing | §30(c) violation harmed defendant's right to fair trial; mandatory rule | §30(c) is directory, not mandatory; it does not prescribe automatic consequences |
| Whether the State committed a discovery violation by not producing video of the tests | Failure to produce recording is akin to destroyed evidence and justifies exclusion | No recording of the tests ever existed or was destroyed; State produced what it had | No discovery violation: State produced existing recording; exclusion is not supported |
| Whether officer’s safety-based placement could support a sanction | Officer could have chosen a different location to ensure recording | Officer reasonably positioned for safety; inability to record was not improper destruction | Court accepts safety rationale; no evidence of intentional withholding; sanction improper |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kladis, 2011 IL 110920 (Ill. 2011) (upholding discovery sanctions where police destroyed videotape and explaining purpose of recordings in truth‑seeking)
- People v. Anderson, 367 Ill. App. 3d 653 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (standard for reviewing abuse of discretion)
- Cable America, Inc. v. Pace Electronics, Inc., 396 Ill. App. 3d 15 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (abuse of discretion includes rulings resting on errors of law)