2018 IL App (5th) 170427
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- On March 9–10, 2016, Ricky Pratt was seriously injured in a single-vehicle crash that killed his passenger; he was transported to St. Louis University Hospital.
- Sauget Police Chief Jones instructed Detective John Parisi to obtain Pratt’s blood for chemical testing; Parisi went to the hospital and had an ER nurse draw blood while Pratt was unconscious or semi-conscious.
- The State charged Pratt with aggravated DUI based on the blood test results; Pratt moved to suppress the results as an unreasonable warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment.
- At the suppression hearing Pratt testified he did not remember the blood draw and did not consent; Detective Parisi and Officer Scott Mundy testified the draw occurred and described the on-scene observations.
- The trial court denied the State’s directed-finding motion, then granted Pratt’s suppression motion, concluding neither the implied-consent statutes nor exigent-circumstances exception justified the warrantless blood draw.
- The State appealed; the appellate court affirmed, holding implied-consent provisions did not apply (no arrest; no proven probable cause) and exigent circumstances were not shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court should have granted State's directed finding that Pratt failed to prove a search occurred | State: Pratt did not prove the blood draw occurred (he testified he didn’t remember); State points to Parisi’s later testimony | Pratt: State failed to raise this at trial when moving for directed finding; record contains Parisi’s testimony that the draw occurred | Court: State forfeited this claim by not raising it at trial; denial of directed finding affirmed |
| Whether implied-consent statutes authorized compelled blood draw without warrant when driver was not under arrest | State: Implied-consent (esp. 11-501.2(c)(2)) applies where officer has probable cause in a fatality and thus authorizes the draw even absent arrest | Pratt: Statutes are limited to arrestees (read 11-501.2 in context with 11-501.1 and 11-501.6); no arrest here and no evidence Chief/Parisi had probable cause | Court: Statutes did not apply—statutory scheme read as a whole requires arrest; and State failed to prove probable cause in the record, so implied consent not satisfied |
| Whether exigent-circumstances exception justified warrantless blood draw | State: McNeely permits case-by-case exigency analysis; officers could have believed exigency existed | Pratt: No evidence exigency existed or that officers could not obtain a warrant; no probable cause shown | Court: Exigent-circumstances exception not met—no probable cause established and no showing a warrant could not have been obtained; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (warrantless blood draws require case-specific exigency analysis)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (criminal sanctions for refusing blood tests implicate Fourth Amendment; courts should not disturb state statutory schemes that lawfully implement testing)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard and warrant requirement)
- People v. Lukach, 263 Ill. App. 3d 318 (probable cause standard for searches)
- People v. Boomer, 325 Ill. App. 3d 206 (post-accident indicia of intoxication may include slurred speech and difficulty walking, but injuries can explain same)