2023 IL App (2d) 220313
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background:
- Defendant Keari Tennort was charged with two counts of DUI after being stopped December 5, 2021, following observations by Lake County deputy Leonardo Juarez.
- Juarez observed a brown Volkswagen Jetta driving "visibly at a high rate of speed," abruptly stop on a four-lane road without any traffic control, then turn into a well-lit Speedway gas station near 3:40 a.m.
- After parking, defendant exited the vehicle unsteady and stumbling; two female passengers assisted him to the gas station. Juarez did not approach immediately because he was handling a separate unwanted-person call.
- Once Juarez finished, he followed defendant for about three miles (without observing traffic violations or erratic driving) before initiating the traffic stop; Juarez testified he wanted to confirm his suspicion of impairment.
- Defendant moved to suppress evidence arguing the stop lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion and that any suspicion dissipated after the three-mile following; the trial court denied suppression, found Juarez credible, and the defendant was later convicted after a stipulated bench trial.
- The appellate court reviewed credibility deferentially but considered de novo whether suppression was required and ultimately affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion to perform an investigatory stop for suspected DUI | Juarez observed high speed, abrupt stop, stumbling on exit, and need for assistance—these facts objectively supported suspicion of impairment | Juarez’s testimony lacked objective detail (no measured speed, no speed limit, no lane markings), he observed from off-road while diverted by another call | Held: Officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion based on totality of circumstances (time, location, high-speed/abrupt stop, unsteady exit, assistance from passengers); stop was lawful |
| Whether reasonable suspicion dissipated after officer followed defendant for three miles without observing further signs of impairment | State: prolonged observation does not necessarily dispel suspicion; officer need not wait for erratic driving once suspicion exists | Defendant: three miles of unremarkable driving dispelled the basis for a stop | Held: Three miles was not a prolonged surveillance under the facts; suspicion did not dissipate and stop remained justified (Navarette principle applies) |
Key Cases Cited:
- Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (U.S. 2014) (an officer need not observe further erratic driving after a basis for reasonable suspicion arises; short observation did not dispel suspicion)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (reasonable-suspicion review uses objective totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (framework for brief investigatory stops on reasonable suspicion)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1949) (commonsense standard for probable cause and related inferences)
- Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for informant tips and reliability)
- State v. Aaberg, 718 N.W.2d 598 (S.D. 2006) (difficulty exiting/walking into a bar at night supported investigatory stop for suspected intoxication)
- People v. Greco, 336 Ill. App. 3d 253 (Ill. App. 2003) (erratic driving, including weaving, can supply reasonable suspicion for DUI)
- City of Norton v. Wonderly, 172 P.3d 1205 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007) (short interval of good driving did not dissipate reasonable suspicion from prior information)
- State v. Schneider, 80 P.3d 1184 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003) (significant time/distance between suspicious conduct and stop can undermine the basis for detention)