may please the court my name is lee abandoned from the illinois attorney general's office on behalf of the people this court should reverse the judgments below that granted and affirmed the rescission of the summary suspension of defendant's driver's license result that was also mistaken by correctly first noting that officer beatty lacked any training or experience in detecting drug use but taking that fact to an extreme place by holding that as a result  unable to reliably develop probable cause connect drug intoxication the majority also erred inciting the fact that the find it mentioned that he was a diabetic as a factor defeating probable cause a hundred circumstances this court should not only correct the result but correct these rationales for any of three independent basis number one some cases and this case is one of them present circumstances related to drug intoxication that don't require the application of extensive training or expertise to understand their connection with drug intoxication number two the probable cause standard itself that applies for this arrest stage is well established to be low and does not demand the type of certainty that expertise does each of these three packs and turn first this presents a good example of a case with a number and the type of circumstances related to drug intoxication that show that expertise need not always be present to understand them around eleven am he had directly observed a defendant was sitting in the driver's seat of a running vehicle he saw that he was in and out of consciousness you notice that the vehicle was half on and half off of the roadway he watched as the tired and lethargic now in addition to these direct observations the paramedics provided additional information the paramedics told baby that defendant was sweaty that he had a high part rate and that he had pinpoint people's even just on the basis of what they observed but also in light of what the paramedics provided in terms of information a reasonably cautious person even untrained and inexperienced officer would look at this collection of circumstances and believe that something was wrong with the finding that either he was having some sort of medical problem or he was impaired perhaps by an intoxicant also how can you say the training and experience is not relevant haven't we said so in many cases i actually disagree with  be those cases but the fact is this case some cases have a number of circumstances or types of circumstances that even an untrained officer can validly develop talking to the paramedics and he determined that there was no sign of alcohol there was no smell of alcohol alcohol on defendant he noted that in the wallet of the independence wallet in the center console of the vehicle there was a small bag that contained of brown granular substance now once again this is an item that an expert might be better able to more certainly identify as potentially being an illicit drug but even an untrained officer would look at a bag containing a granular substance and think this might be illicit drugs especially in light of what is perhaps the most important circumstance here which is the item that was on the front passenger seat and that was the half metal beverage that had burn marks on its interior and it not only that but also on the front passenger seat was an uncapped and used hypodermic syringe now not only is it important that the fact that it was a syringe which is mentally connected to illicit drug use it's also important that was i'm happy it's very reasonable t infer that people do not believe uncapped syringes on their car seats for extended periods this would supported inference that it was recently used which was all the more corroborated by the fact that the paramedics said the defendant had a fresh track marks on his arm so again the fact that it's characteristic there characterized as fresh supports the conclusion that he recently injected himself now again while the baggie while the track marks while the syringe aren't definitively connected to illicit drug use the can was in light of the positive field test and again remember at the probable cause stage and i'd only rabies a number and a type of circumstances that did not require expertise to understand their earlier this year in the district of columbia versus westie case characterizing it as a low bar that is lower than the preponderance of the evidence and which means that it need not even be more likely than not that the officer has this belief that criminal conduct o it's also important to note that for probable cause purposes at least the officers need not eliminate all potential innocent explanations for what's being observed and that is why the fact that the friend it mentioned he was a diabetic cannot be a factor to defeat probable cause because they're still on the basis of all the circumstances present was a reasonable basis to conclude that it was ingestion of illicit drugs and not a diabetic reaction going on finally it's important to note that specifically in the dui drug contacts illinois president has confirmed that the officer doesn't need to definitively determine which type of drug that the arrestee had ingested so really these areas in which probable cause does not demand certainty are the types of things that expertise can admit it really help with but because you need not know for sure that is symptom is due to drug use versus a medical problem need not identify which particular drug is in the pit is in the bag for example that is why it's improper for the appellate court majority to as a per se basis categorically held that it's an officer who lacks training training and experience is unable to reliably develop probable cause this is also show not only in these general principles but the many cases that of course by them at pages twenty two hundred twenty four of the opening brief there are several examples provided that were evaluating the validity of arrests and what's notable about these cases the different kinds of drug related offenses but it it's important that these cases don't even discuss the level of training great spirits of the arresting officer if it were in fact a requirement that there be some training  majority held here in every case evaluating the validity of the rats would have to discuss that topic and coming to the conclusion that arrest is valid so these cases provide another basis to understand why these at the probable cause stage appellate court majority's rationale imposing a per se requirement of training and experience was erroneous and finally this courtship considering the practical fall out of such a categorical approach while of course it's helpful for officers to have this training and it is relevant to the probable cause determination it is impractical to think that every law enforcement agency in illinois could ensure that every officer who might respond to a traffic offense our potential d what happens type of training and even if that were possible in terms of have enough resources to make that happen majority also placed a lot of emphasis on experience so that implies that there is some sort of magical probable cause i'm standards this court should look at the variety of circumstances in this case related to the behavior and symptoms of the defendant this court should look at these multiple in the shop recent illicit drug use that were found at the scene and come to the conclusion that the result was erroneous that in fact officer beatty did have valid probable cause to arrest but even in addition to that there's a third basis potentially for reversal and that is court case that's my research is the sole case in illinois to directly squarely consider whether a lay person opinion testimony on drug intoxication is every admissible  shelton also contain the statement simply that laypeople are not familiar with drug intoxication and can't recognize it and coming to that holding shelton did cite one other case people versus doc with the truck with was a sufficiency of the evidence and so because it was looking at the level of you know looking at the state's case to see if it had sufficiently proven beyond a reasonable doubt that that defendant had been under the influence of drugs the court in jock with said all we have here is  nothing on the part of non expert police officers and ultimately concluded that was insufficient to prove drug intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt coming to that sufficiency ruling does not create a rule that is never at mystical so in other words shelton has a very shaky foundation is that most and it does so instead if this court which it would be a matter of first impression if this court reconsider with the opinion testimony on drug intoxication is appropriate  should instead look to illinois rules of evidence of no one in seven o two which distinguish when certain issues are better addressed by an expert opinion witness or a layperson opinion witness and clarify that the key is whether it is one that is  a subject of specialized knowledge scientific knowledge technical knowledge or something like that and so in trying to make that determination about drug intoxication the opening brief at pages twen thirty provided some data from federal government reports that are appropriately subject of judicial notice by this court just provide a rough outline to explain that drug intoxication is analogous to other topics that this court for decades has allowed late in testimony on and those two are alcohol intoxication and certain types of mental capacity or illness issues and so of course the federal government data doesn't perfectly correspond to the contours of the illinois dui statute but it's simply meant to you to emphasize that the analogy is appropriate to imagine that a lay person whether an average person would be familiar enough would be a round a topic that's prevalent enough that they could potentially recognize it in a competent way and so just how a layperson a person can say i observed john doe and he said you know i saw him acting like this and from my experience i thought he was drunk in the same majority's premise here that officer beatty because he had no training and experience was somehow categorically i'm able to reliably identify someone as being intoxicated by drugs so i'm any of these three bases this court reverse and it's important not only true first the result in this case because in fact given the many circumstances related to his symptoms and behavior and the items of illicit drug ingestion that yes there was probable cause in this any type of more complex i'm crying for things that might require proof of some sort of officially verifiable fact that the arresting officer might not know definitively at the time of arrest and so unless now i'm sorry i'm sorry so that what the state is doing is melting really this thing statutes together on the under the drug related crimes argument and if you look at the individual statutes they have different elements and different requirements as i said the the why drug statute requires an impairment isn't that doesn't the court look at the totality of the circumstances yes and and the the parties agree on on the fact that  is not perfect it doesn't require perfection it doesn't really wire the us bander that is required file but we have to understand that it's rooted in the fourth amendment it's rooted within article one section six of this state's constitution it has meaning and i think a good analogy to show the meaning of probable cause and the significance of it which  think that's an appropriate analysis to make big cuz it is within driving under the influence of alcohol is within the same statute of driving under the influence of drugs so like alcohol stopped the officer will observe and become suspicious if you get served so she observes a car that is either weaving or is not driving at a constant speed the officer then follows the car for a period of time if the officer suspicion remains the officer will stop the car and approach and and talk to the driver while the officer is talking to the driver he's gathering information he's looking to see whether their eyes of blood shot whether they slur when asking for his driver's license whether or not he has the officer will ask the driver to get out of the car to submit to three different field sobriety tests and once again looking to confirm the suspicions and make the the driver to submit to a breathalyzer so when we talk about probable cause and we talk about the fact that it doesn't rise to the level of what's wired file it's still significant because limited to the the narcs white and when he did it on this case it was the first time he had ever done it now it's interesting to know and  like to draw attention to two pieces of information that the officer had that could have shown him pyramid and that is one of them being the defendant's vitals i guess i'll call that but the officer did not have the skill or or education or knowledge to say that a heart rate of one hundred forty four is indicative of being under the influence of the significance of that fact is something that he couldn't relate to or explain to the judge the circuit court because he simply didn't happen knowledge of the human problem because the definition would change with no more to be a these cases in order for the circuit court to understand the information there needs to be in a higher level of training or skill to understand have that level and that's a serious level of knowledge we don't know whether or not there was an expert on the force that had could have been called she was just in making the best making a determination say that there wouldn't be other violations that the driver may have committed that was evident and that was which he or she could be a basket and i think this sort of goes to  response in answer your question to to what this the state is arguing that the appellate court was wrong and saying that there is a police officer such as this one would never have probable cause but it doesn't mean that there aren't other statutory violations which which come which which can be for which the defendant can be charged the other issue that i want to moving from the title the other one is the track marks again this was information relate to from the paramedics to the officer and there was no other than reciting that information there was no the officer did not have any independent knowledge to express the importance of the significance of that that wouldn't be out of the ordinary track marks  swim injection it and that that's my point your honor it was the circuit court saying well this goes hand in hand so what does that show that goes to show that information and and if i just make back illinois administrative code particularly providing services medical services in the community particularly insulin so what that goes to show is that there is a level for the circuit court to understand the significance of the track marks it would be someone who had that knowledge that could have testified to to assist the circuit court in understanding the state discussed and before this court and some of the questions seem to suggest that it is a high bar we're not talking about the necessity of a p a degree a person is considered to be an expert if they have by their skills by their experience by their training by their education there's a  to a relative being a diabetic and and so he he was able to testify as to a portion of what he observed based on his is knowing this relative and being a diabetic and how the court and sit around he then said well you don't know the physiological effects of diabetes and alcohol so we're not going to allow you to go any further on that opinion  testifying and where their knowledge comes from there is a fluidity here that if this court were to try to establish a bright line which he didn't do and people versus doubt and it shouldn't do in this case you have created an avalanche then again i would argue that this court need not make that decision a determination in this case because when you look at the police officers testimony he really served i believe my thank you your honor i basically want to make two points and rebuttal i'm the first is to emphasize that this is a new field for member station you seeing and in the decision proceeding the burden is on the defendant to show that he's entitled to have a summary suspension rescinded so to the extent that my present counsel was trying to say that the state had to prove certain things no it was defendant's burden and the hearing and specifically the proceeding was under section two dash one eighteen point one two of the vehicle code and the only issue that's up from that subsection raises is whether the police officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the person was driving under the influence of alcohol that was the sole or sorry the influence drugs so that was the sole issue at that proceeding now if the to the extent that my opponent was talking about how their expertise is required to understand exactly how maybe a diabetic w insulin things like that actually i wanted to to disagree and remind the court that because this is a probable cause determination the very point is that the officer did not have to definitively eliminate diabetes as the cause and the best case to illustrate this that was cited in the opening brief smith versus ball state university that was the case where the defendant had been driving off into the sidewalk and was found unconscious in the drivers here vehicle but in that case he had a medical bracelet on that said i'm a diabetic one of the responding officers who arrived said i recognize this person four days ago he was in the e r in diabetic shock they actually kind of confidently knew that this was a diabetic person and that that could have a basis to explain the fact that he was driving a radically and that he was unconscious nonetheless the seventh circuit found that there was probable cause for arrest for dui drugs and that illustrates that at least at the probable cause sta you're looking at her addict driving you're looking at symptoms that are unusual for a person who would be healthy and sober that you can you can develop probable cause for dui drugs even when there is evidence even more so you know stronger than we have here that there is a potential innocent explanation for what's going on and so even if imagining if defendant had profit sort of evidence that the resisting hearing is somehow more definitively established that he was a diabetic that would still not defeat probable cause in this case because remember the question is what did the officer know at the time of the arrest and what he saw at that point or said several symptoms and behaviors as well as several items that are connected to illicit drugs and most importantly one of those items the burned hand had confirmed presence of an illicit drug on it that alone is enough to develop probable cause it does not require any sort of expertise to make sure that these sick behaviors are tied to a specific drug that is just and nothing under the totality of the circumstances at this initial stage for the officer to develop valid probable cause even as we acknowledge for an officer who has absolutely no training or experience and i also want  right was properly decided it's clearly not addressed weatherly opinion testimony on intoxication is for miscible to resolve this case it's just offered as a as an independent basis for reversal and instead actually i would suggest that it's perhaps most important for this to correct what happened below more than centering on the probable cause standard to reaffirm that the police officers are required to have training and experience to reaffirm that the officers need not