2021 IL App (4th) 210122
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- On November 16, 2019, Officer Robert King observed Charles Steele inside a Le Roy gas station; he testified Steele was swaying and smelled strongly of alcohol as Steele exited.
- King watched Steele get into a vehicle, followed him as Steele drove several blocks making multiple turns, and then observed Steele enter a second gas station (Casey’s); King stopped Steele there and arrested him for DUI.
- King acknowledged he did not see Steele commit any traffic violations and the officer did not interview the gas-station clerk about Steele’s behavior.
- At the suppression hearing the court found King’s testimony that Steele staggered lacked credibility but accepted the odor and swaying observations; the court concluded those observations plus the driving did not create reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle.
- The trial court granted Steele’s motion to suppress; the State appealed but filed a certificate of impairment and raised, for the first time on appeal, an argument that suppression should not apply because King did not engage in misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did defendant make a prima facie showing that the stop was unlawful, shifting the burden to the State? | State: Steele failed to make a prima facie case. | Steele: He was stopped while committing no traffic offense; prima facie case established. | Court: Steele made a prima facie showing; burden shifted to State (defendant retains ultimate burden). |
| Whether Officer King had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle. | State: Odor of alcohol and observed swaying were sufficient to justify the stop. | Steele: Observations were insufficient (no traffic violation, swaying not probative), so no reasonable suspicion. | Court: No reasonable, articulable suspicion at the moment of seizure; suppression affirmed. |
| Whether the exclusionary rule should be applied despite no alleged officer misconduct. | State (raised on appeal): Exclusionary rule should not apply because King did not engage in misconduct. | Steele: State forfeited that argument by not raising it in the trial court. | Court: Declined to consider the argument as forfeited; suppression stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McDonough, 239 Ill. 2d 260 (2010) (community‑caretaking exception where officer smelled alcohol from driver of a parked vehicle)
- People v. Patel, 163 N.E.3d 1282 (2020) (post‑stop odor plus traffic offense supported further DUI inquiry; facts distinguished)
- People v. Timmsen, 50 N.E.3d 1092 (2016) (Terry reasonable‑suspicion standard governs vehicle stops)
- People v. Brooks, 104 N.E.3d 417 (2017) (defendant bears burden at suppression hearing; prima facie shifting rules)
- People v. Chestnut, 398 Ill. App. 3d 1043 (2010) (prima facie showing must show defendant was doing nothing to justify seizure)
- People v. Love, 199 Ill. 2d 269 (2002) (warrant and probable cause are usual Fourth Amendment standards)
- People v. Hill, 162 N.E.3d 260 (2020) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness balancing)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes reasonable, articulable suspicion standard)
- People v. Holloway, 86 Ill. 2d 78 (1981) (issues not raised in trial court are generally forfeited on appeal)