2015 IL App (2d) 150058
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- On Oct. 11, 2013, Karl Wuckert crashed his SUV after swerving for deer; officers arrived, observed a "one-hitter" and faint cannabis odor, administered field sobriety tests, and Deputy Douglas arrested Wuckert for DUI.
- Wuckert was transported by ambulance to a hospital; hospital personnel obtained a urine specimen and tested it in the hospital lab.
- Hospital records stated the specimen analysis lacked chain-of-custody handling and that results were for medical purposes only and not for legal use.
- At suppression proceedings the trial court initially granted Wuckert’s motion to suppress evidence as the arrest lacked probable cause, then conditionally allowed the hospital urine results if proper foundation was shown, and later barred admission of the urine test as fruit of the illegal arrest.
- The State appealed the suppression of the urine test results; the appellate court reviewed statutory admissibility (625 ILCS 5/11-501.4) and Fourth Amendment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 11-501.4 bars admission of hospital urine test taken after arrest | 11-501.4 permits admission of hospital blood/urine tests performed during ER treatment regardless of timing if foundation is met | Statute should not allow postarrest tests; hospital privacy and chain-of-custody concerns bar admission | Held: Statute unambiguous; no pre/post arrest distinction — results admissible with proper foundation under 11-501.4 |
| Whether the Fourth Amendment bars admission because test was fruit of illegal arrest | Test was performed by independent hospital personnel, not police agents; thus not fruit of illegal arrest | Test resulted from illegal arrest and police involvement, so it must be suppressed as tainted fruit | Held: No Fourth Amendment bar — medical personnel were not state agents and there was no police subterfuge; disclosure to police was statutorily required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Poncar, 323 Ill. App. 3d 702 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (hospital blood tests admissible under statute; exclusion not required absent police subterfuge)
- People v. Yant, 210 Ill. App. 3d 961 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (blood tests taken in ER not Fourth Amendment violations where medical staff, not police, ordered test)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (taking blood under reasonable medical circumstances does not violate Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1984) (Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches or seizures by private parties not acting as government agents)
- People v. Lovejoy, 235 Ill. 2d 97 (Ill. 2009) (State must show evidence was not obtained as a result of illegal government activity to avoid exclusion)