People v. Relwani
99 N.E.3d 152
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Early morning, defendant (Relwani) found asleep in driver’s seat of a running vehicle in a Walgreens parking lot; alone in the car; arrested for DUI and taken to the station.
- Officer provided Relwani a notice of statutory summary suspension; the Secretary of State summarily suspended his license for refusal to submit to chemical testing.
- Relwani petitioned to rescind the suspension arguing (1) the incident occurred on private property (so implied-consent statute did not apply) and (2) he did not refuse chemical testing (he agreed to a breath test).
- At the rescission hearing Relwani testified but had limited memory; prosecution moved for a directed finding at close of Relwani’s case; the trial court granted the directed finding and denied reconsideration.
- Trial court relied on (a) absence of evidence that the Walgreens lot was privately owned/maintained and (b) a sworn report indicating Relwani refused or failed to complete testing; court concluded Relwani failed to make a prima facie case.
- Relwani appealed; majority affirmed the directed finding; Justice Lytton dissented, arguing the burdens were misallocated and the State failed to justify a second chemical test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Relwani) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Relwani established prima facie that the Walgreens parking lot was not a "public highway" so implied-consent statute did not apply | Relwani had burden to show the lot was privately owned and maintained; he presented no evidence so he failed to meet prima facie burden | The lot was a private business parking lot; that fact alone established a prima facie case and the State should bear burden to show public maintenance | Held for State: defendant failed to show the lot was privately owned/maintained; directed finding affirmed |
| Whether Relwani established he did not refuse chemical testing | The court relied on the sworn report in the file showing refusal; defendant couldn’t recall details, so he failed to negate refusal | He testified he agreed to a breath test and could not remember refusing any test | Held for State: record supported a finding that defendant failed to prove he did not refuse (trial court could credit the report) |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by allowing cross-examination beyond scope | Questions about prior statements were within scope and spoke to credibility and context | Objection that cross-examination exceeded scope was wrongly overruled and prejudiced defendant | Held for State: court did not abuse discretion; any error would be harmless because defendant failed to make prima facie case |
| Appropriate remedy if directed finding erroneous | State: if defendant prevails, remand for the State to present its case (proceed with hearing) | Relwani sought rescission or, at least, remand for completion of the hearing | Held: majority affirmed directed finding; dissent would have remanded for new hearing so State could prove public maintenance and justify second testing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Helt, 384 Ill. App. 3d 285 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (parking lots may be "highways" if open to public and publicly maintained)
- People v. Culbertson, 258 Ill. App. 3d 294 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (implied-consent statute applies only on public highways; private lots may nonetheless qualify if publicly maintained)
- People v. Ayres, 228 Ill. App. 3d 277 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (rescission affirmed where defendants were observed driving in private parking lots)
- People v. Kissel, 150 Ill. App. 3d 283 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986) (summary suspension inapplicable where driving occurred only on private parking lots)
- People v. Montelongo, 152 Ill. App. 3d 518 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (evidence that lot was private supported rescission)
- Best v. Best, 223 Ill. 2d 342 (Ill. 2006) (standard for reversing a trial court as against the manifest weight of the evidence)
- People v. Kirk, 291 Ill. App. 3d 610 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (officer may request multiple chemical tests but must have reasonable grounds for a second test)