No. 3-09- 0396 Opin ion f il ed Dece m ber 21, 20 10.

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD DI STRICT A.D., 2010 THE PE OPLE OF TH E S TATE OF ) Appe al fro m the C ircu it Co ur t of t he ILLINO IS, ) Tw el f th Judi ci al Ci rc ui t, ) Wi

ll County, Illi

nois, Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, )

) v. ) No. 08-CF-2005 ) DENNIS A. H

AC KETT, ) T he Ho no r ab le ) Carla Al

essio Policandriotes, Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUS TI CE McD ADE deliver ed t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Justic e O’ Brien

conc urred i n the j udgm

en t and opi ni on. Justic e Sch

m i dt di sse nted , wi th opi ni on. OPINI ON The St at e cha rg ed d efenda nt , D ennis A. H ack et t , w ith ag gr avat ed d riving und er t he in fl uence an d aggravated driv

in g whi le li cense rev oked. The circui

t cour t o f W

il l C ounty granted defen dant’s m ot ion to quash arrest and to suppress evi dence on the grounds pol ic e l acked pr o ba ble ca us e t o st o p d efe nd an t ’s ve hic le. Fo rt he fo llo win g r ea so ns, we affir m. BACK GROUND A t th e h ea ri n g on de f en da n t’s moti on to quash ar re st a n d suppr es s e

v i den ce , D eputy Mi chael Bl ouin of the Wi ll County sh

erif f’ s poli ce testif ie d that he was dri

vi ng hi s unm arked-2-

police veh

ic le northbound on Briggs Street near Maple i n W il l C ounty whe

n he observed defen dant’s vehi

cl e traveli ng north on Briggs di

rectly in front of hi

m. Bl ouin de scri

bed Bri ggs as a st ra ight , fo ur -lane r oa dwa y with t wo lanes o f nor t hbou nd t ra ffi c and t wo lanes o f sou t hbou nd t r affic
. T he no r t h a nd so ut h la ne s a r e ma rke d b y a d ivid er an d t he t wo no r t hbo un d la ne s o f t r affic
ar e divided by black and whit e st ripe s. B lou in fi rst obs er ved d efenda nt ’s vehicle in t he r ight -ha nd
no r t hbo un d la ne o f t r affic
. De fen da nt cr o ss ed int o t he left
- ha nd no r t hbo un d la ne an d B lo uin
man eu v ered h i s v eh i cl e to f oll ow b eh i n d def en da n t. Blouin test if

ied that after e nter ing the lef t- hand nort hbound lane, he obser ved defendant’s vehicle move t o t he r ight . B lou in tes t ifi ed t hat defend ant ’s vehicle’s right -side t ires c ro ssed t he bl ack-a nd- whi te-stri ped l ane di vi der b etween the two north boun d lanes of traf f i c on B ri ggs. Defe ndan t’s veh ic le then m oved back i

nto t he l eft-han d la ne. Bl ouin testi fi

ed that fi ve seconds lat er , de fen da nt ’s r igh t - sid e t ire s a ga in c r o ss ed t he bla ck
- an d- wh it e- st r ipe d la ne div ide r . Blo uin
co uld no t r ec all ho w fa rde fen da nt ’s ve hic le c r o ss ed int o t he r igh t - ha nd lan e o f no r t hbo un d t r affic on Briggs . Bloui

n stated that defendan

t’s tires “ sl

igh tly ” crossed the l ane di

vi der. Bloui

n testif ie d that bot h tim

es, defe ndan t’s veh ic le “b arely ” went over the bl

ack-and-whi

te-str ipe d la

ne di vi der and that bot h tim

es, defendant’s tires crossed t he l in e for a matter of seconds. Based on h

is observati ons of def

endan t’s veh ic le crossin g the la ne di vi der between the two
nor t hbou nd lanes of t ra ffi c o n Brig gs, Dep ut y Blouin de ci de d to stopdef

endan t’s v ehi cle f or a t ra ffi c violat ion. Blou in tes t ifi ed t hat he did no t st op defend ant ’s vehicle a fte r t he first t ime he observed def

endan t’s veh ic le cross the lan

e di vi der but that he did dec ide to stop defendan

t after de fen da nt “sw er ve d a se co nd t ime” be ca us e, in his o pin io n, if a v eh icle “sw er ve s” t wic e t he r e is
usua l l y a prob l em

wi th the dri vi ng. Blou in did no t , ho weve r, st op defend ant imm ediat ely after he-3-

“sw er ve d a se co nd t ime. ” R at he r , he fo llo we d h im. W hile B lo uin did no t sp ec ifica lly re ca ll Hackett ’s turn indi

cato rs fl ashi ng or his stopping for li

ghts, he te stifi

ed that had he seen v

iolations, he woul d have ticketed def endan t for them. Thus the ev

ide nce supports fi

ndi ng that after defen dant’s two mome

ntary s werves Bl ouin c ontinued to follow hi m wh il e defe ndan t, without commi tt in g any traffic violation, negot iated (1) t he m ove into t he left tur n lane, (2) t wo left turns,
an d ( 3) co mplia nc e w it h t he law s c o nc er ning lan e u sa ge , sp ee d limit , t ur n sig na ls, an d t r affic sign als. AN AL YSIS Foll owing the hearin

g on t he m

ot ion, the tr ial

cour t gr anted defendant’s m ot ion to quash arrest and suppress ev

ide nce. “On appeal , a trial

court 's f actual f in din gs concerni

ng a
moti on to s upp re ss will be up held unles s t hey are aga inst t he manifest w eight of t he evide nce. [Cit at ion. ] T he ult imate d ecisio n, however, concerni

ng whether the evi

dence sh ould ha ve b een su pp re ss ed is a q ue st io n o f la w, which we rev

ie w de novo
. [Ci tation .] A peace of

fi cer ma y c onduct a law ful traffi

c stopbase d on probable cause that the driv er of the veh

ic le has com mi tt ed a t r affic violation. [Ci

tation.]” People v. Matous , 381 Ill . App. 3d 918, 921- 22 (2008), citin

g Illino is v. Caball es, 543 U .S. 405 (2 005). Th e Sta te a rguestha t Bl oui n h ad prob ab l e c au se

to be l i eve that d ef

en da nt v i ol ate d s ec ti on 11-70 9(a) of

the Il l i noi s Ve hi cle Code (Code) (6 25 IL CS 5/1 1-709 (a) (W est 200 6)).-4- “Whe ne ve ran y ro ad wa y has be en div ide d in t o 2 o rmo r e c lea r ly
marked l anes f or traff i c the f oll owi ng r ul es i n addi tion to all others
co ns ist en t he r ew it h s ha ll ap pl y. ( a) A ve hic le s ha ll be d r ive n a s ne ar ly as pr ac t ica ble en t ire ly wit hin a single lane and shall not be move d fro m such lane unt il the dri v er h as f i rs t as certai

n ed th at s uc h mov em en t ca n b e m ade wi th saf ety .” 625 ILCS 5/11-7 09(a) (We st 2006 ). De fen da nt ar gu es , ba se d o n his t es t imo ny, t ha t in t he ar ea he wa s d r iving , Br igg s is in poor condi

tion and tha

t he ma y h ave b een tak i n g ev as i v e acti on to av oi d p oth ol es . Th

e S tate argues that Bloui

n testif ie d that he di

d not see any

pot hole s or obstruct ions

that would cause a dr ive rt o de via t e fr o m a la ne o f t r affic
. T he St at e a r gu es t ha t ab se nt o bst ruc t io ns t ha t wo uld
cau se a dr iver t o d eviat e fro m a lane o f tr affic, an o ffi cer ’s o bser vat ion o f a vehicle cr os sing t he la ne di vi der provides the

off ic er with grounds f

or a t raff ic stop based on a vi

olation of section 11- 709(a ). In People

v. Halsall

, 1 78 I ll. App. 3d 6 17, 618 (1 989 ), t he o ffi cer t est ifi ed t hat he observed the def

endan t's veh ic le traveli ng on the l

eft-han d si de of the road. The car slowly drif ted in to the righ

t lane . The def

endan t in that case drove h

is veh ic le once across the center l

in e and, af ter i ncreas i ng h i s sp eed to an

esti mated 70m

i l es p er hour, cross ed th e center l i ne two more tim es. The testim

ony i n that case was that whe

n the def endan t cro ssed the cen

ter li ne, approx i matel y one-h alf of h i s ca r was over th e l i ne . Halsall, 178 Ill . App. 3d at 618. This co ur t fou nd t hat t her e wa s no evidenc e t hat when t he de fendant in Halsall move d out si de of hi

s l ane h e endan gered hi ms el f, pedestri ans, or ot her veh ic le s. Based on that fi

ndi ng,-5-

t his co ur t held t hat “the St at e failed t o p ro ve t hat when t he de fendant moved ou t side o f his lane he di d so without fi

rst determin

in g that t he m

ovem ent could b e m

ade saf el y” (Halsall , 17 8 I ll. App. 3d at 619) and reversed the judgme nt of convi

ction f or im proper lane us age (

Halsall, 178 Ill . A pp. 3d a t 620 ). Se e al so People v. Albright , 251 Il l . Ap p. 3d 34 1, 343 ( 1993)(“Th i s court has held t hat impr o pe r la ne u sa ge do es no t o cc ur unle ss t he d efe nda nt end ang er s himse lf, pede stri an s, or other v

ehi cles w hen h e m oves out of h i s lane of traf f i c”). The dr iving in bot h Halsall and Albright

was po tent ial

ly more dange ro us t han defendant’s dri vi ng i n th e c as e b ef ore u s n ow. B l oui

n provi de d n

o tes ti mony con cerni ng othe r v eh i cl esor pe de stri ans on Bri ggs at the ti me h e ob serv ed

de f en da nt’ s d ri vi ng . Bl oui n c oul d n ot tes ti f y how far d efenda nt ’s t ires c ro ssed t he dividing line. B y cont ra st , in Albright , t he de fendant cr os sed t he l i ne on the ri ght s i de b

y at l east a tire

width on three sep arate occ asi

ons. Albright , 251 Ill . App. 3d at 342. Even were we to assume the pres ence of veh ic le s or pedestrians, Bl

ouin a dmi tt ed that def endan t’s encroach

men t in to another l ane of

traf f i c was sl i ght a nd b ri ef , l asti ng a total of mere sec onds . Thus , und

er Halsall and Albright , we would af fi rm the tri al

court ’s j udgme

nt that Blou in did no t have p ro bable ca use t o be lieve tha t defend ant had c ommitt ed a t ra ffi c violat ion and af f i rm the orde r gran ti ng de f en da nt’ s m oti on to q ua sh arres t. The q

ue sti on s we are conf

ronted wi th are (1) whether our decisions in tho se cases r emai

n val id foll owing t he supreme co urt ’s dec ision in People

v. Smith , 172 Il

l . 2d 289 , 297 (1 996), and (2) wh ethe r Smith requires rev

ersal of the trial

court in the in stant case. In Smith , the def

en da n t was observe d by

a poli ce off ic er lea vi ng a tavern , gett in

g in hi s car and dri vi ng away. The off

ic er, suspectin

g im pai rmen t, foll owed defen

dant as he drove

on a fourl ane, two- way

street wi th a f i f th lane i n the center northbound and s out hbound for t ur ning. T he-6-

off ic er observed the driver's side wheels of the def endan t's c ar cr os s o ver t he lane line dividing t he l ef t la ne f rom th e center turn

l an e b y at l ea st s i x i nc he s a nd rem ai n ov er th e l an e l i ne f or approxim ately 100 to 150 ya

rds--the le

ngth of 1 to 1 1/2 foot bal l f ie lds . A sho rt t ime later , t he de fen da nt cr o ss ed o ve rt he lan e line div idin g t he left lan e fr o m t he r igh t lan e b y ap pr o ximat ely s ix i nche s f or 150 to 200 y

ards
. Smith , 1 72 I ll. 2d a t 293 . T hus, t he de fendant in Smith was dri vi ng signifi cant di stancesin all thre e lanes o f tr affic–so metimes w ith his vehicle in t he left and right lanes and so metimes in t he left and cen ter turn lan

es. The poli

ce off ic er testifi ed t hat t he defen dant did n ot endan ger any ot her veh

ic le s or persons when

he dev ia ted across the lan

e lin es and verifi ed that t he def

endan t never compl

etely le ft the center

l ane i n w hi ch he wastrave l i

ng. Smith , 172 Ill . 2d at 293. The defend ant in Smith ar gue d t hat a violat ion o f sect ion 1 1- 709 (a ) d oe s no t oc cur when a
m otorist m ome ntari l y cross es over a l

ane l i ne , but occ

urs on l y wh en a m otorist en dan gers others whi l e m ovi ng f rom a l ane of traf f i c. Smith , 1 72 I ll. 2d a t 296 . O ur sup re me co ur t held t hat “[t ]he pla in la nguage of the

statut e establ

is hes two separate r equi

rem en ts f or la ne usa ge. F i rst, a motorist must dri

ve a v ehi cl e as near

ly as pr acticabl e en tire l y wi thi n one lane. Sec ond, a moto rist may

not move a vehicle f

rom a lan e of traffic until

the moto rist has det er mined t hat t he
m ovem en t can be saf el y made.” (Em phasi s ad ded.) Smith , 172 Il

l . 2d at 29 6-97. Th

e court concl uded that “[i]t f

oll ows that when a m

ot orist crosses over a l ane l in e and is not drivi ng as ne arl y as practicab l e wi

thi n one lane, the

motorist h

as v i ola ted the statute.” (Em

phasi s ad ded.) Smith , 172 Il

l . 2d at 29 7. In light of t his langua ge in Smith , it see ms clear t hat ou r e ar lier de cisions in Halsall and Albright would no l

onger be va

li d. In both of those cases, the dri vers h ad encroached-7-

signifi cantl y i nto a second lan

e and had proceede d an appreciabl e distance i

n two lanes. Turn i ng to the question of w hether Smith re quir es r ever sal o f the t rial co ur t in the inst ant case, we do not read Smith as ho ldin g t ha t an y t ime a mo t o r ist ve er s mo men t ar ily and minimally
ove r a lane line he o r she is driving in mor e t han o ne lane o f tr affic. T her e ar e t oo many innocent circu msta nces t hat might c aus e a mo t or ist t o mo menta rily and inadver t ent ly i nch ac ro ss a lane di v i der to f i n d th at s uc h ac ti on , w i

th out m orecrea tes pr ob ab l e c au se

to ar re st. Ba se d o n t he ev ide nc e in t he inst an t r ec o r d w e c an no t find t ha t an y po lice o ffice rin Bl ouin’ s position could have reas onably believed t hat defend ant was dr iving in m or e t han o ne lane wit hin the mea ning o f the st at ut e and t her efo re co mmi t t ed t he t ra ffi

c violat ion fo r w hich he was stopped
. "Wh er e a t r affic st o p is ba se d u po n a mist ak e o f law , it is

unco nst itu t ional. Ho weve r, t his may not re so lve the issue. An ot herwi se i

mpro per st op base d o n a mista ke o f law may be fou nd
reas onab l e an

d con sti tution al i f ‘the f acts k nown to [the of

f i cer] rais ed a reasonab le

suspici on that t he def

endan t was in fact vi ol ati ng the l aw aswri tten .’ [Ci tati on. ] A pol i ceof f i cer m ay stop
a v eh icle wh er e h e h as r ea so na ble su sp icio n t o be lieve a d r ive ris
v i ol ati n g th e V eh i cl e C ode . [C i

tati on .] R ea son ab l e s us pi ci on ex i sts where an off ic er possesses spe ci fi

c, articulabl

e fac ts that, when
co mbined wit h ra t ional infere nces der ived fro m tho se fac t s, g ive rise to a belief the driv

er is comm

itting a traffi

c violation." People v. Mott , 389 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 53 9, 543- 44 (20 09).-8-

Fir st , Blo uin pr o vid ed no t es t imo ny fr o m wh ich t o find t ha t an o ffice rin his po sit io n c o uld
re aso nably beli

eve t hat defend ant enga ged in im pr op er lane us age . We fully acc ept and a pply t he suprem e court’s fi

ndi ng that section 11-709(a) creates “two separate requirem ents f or lane us age” inc lud ing t he ind ep en de nt r eq uir eme nt t ha t “amo t o r ist mus t dr ive ** * a s ne ar ly as pr ac t ica ble entirel y w ithi n one l ane.” Smith , 172 Ill . 2d at 296-97. We construe Smith , we be lieve pr o pe r ly
an d c on siste n tl y wi th th e s up re me c our

t’s i n ten t, to a pp l y to s i tua ti on s l i ke th e on e p re se n ted to t he co ur t in that

ca se , wh er e t he dr ive ro f t he ve hic le a ct ua lly dr ive s fo rso me r ea so na bly appre ciab l e di stan

ce i n m ore than one l ane of traf f i c. Ou r r ea ding o f Smith is sup po rt ed by t he su pr eme co ur t ’s o wn la nguage . I t sp ec ifica lly hel d that “[o]nce [the offi

cer] saw [the] defen

dant cross over a lan

e lin e and drive in tw

o lanes of traffic , [ he ] ha d p r o bable ca us e t o ar r es t [ t he ] de fen da nt fo ra v io lat io n o f t he Co de
. ” ( E mph as is adde d.) Smith , 17 2 Il

l . 2d at 2 97. W e do rec ogn

izean d ta kenote tha t the su pre me c ourt d

i d n ot specify how far a v

ehi cl e m ust encroach a second l

ane of traf

fi c or how long a ve

hicl e m ust tr avel i n two l anes of traf f i c to estab l i sh

proba bl e ca use to arrest the

dri ver f or a vi ola tion of the Code
. To answ er t hat que st ion, we t ur n t o t he ho lding in Smith –ag ain, in an e ffort simply t o be consi stent with the l

anguage the s

upreme c ourt chose i

n i ts judgm ent. Based enti

rely on what we
re aso nably beli

eve t he su pr eme co ur t intend ed by its ow n langua ge in it s judg ment in Smith , we
m us t f i n d th at th e c our t wou l d h ol d th at prob ab l e c au se

ex i sts to f i n d th at a dri v er h as f ai l ed to dr ive “a s ne ar ly as pr ac t ica ble en t ire ly wit hin o ne lan e” wh en “ar ea so na ble , pr ud en t man in possession of the knowledge of the arresti ng off ic er would bel

ie ve that [the] offe

nse h as been
comm itted.” Smith , 172 Ill . 2d at 297, citing People v. Robinson, 62 Il l . 2d 273 , 276 (1 976). In t his case , by Blo uin’s o wn ad mission, d efenda nt ’s t ires o nly sl ight ly cro ssed t he lane-9-

divider for mere s eco nds be for e de fendant co nt inued t o o per at e his vehicle ent irely in the left -ha nd lan e of traffic. Instr uctive and i n stark co ntrast is Smith , wh er e t he de fen da nt dr o ve wit h his wheels straddli

ng the l ane di vi ders by si x i nch es on opp osi te s i de s of

th e stre et on

two s ep arate
occ as i on s, ef

f ec ti v el y dri v i n g i n th re e l an es of tra f f i c f or a pp rox i mate l y 15 0 y ardseach ti me. W i th regard to the second requi remen t o f the statut e, nothin

g in Bl ouin’ s testim

ony provi des any bases t o find t ha t if de fen da nt did ch an ge fr o m t he left lan e o f t r affic t o t he r igh t , ho we ve rbr iefly, he did not d o so wi thou t f i rs t de term

i ni ng tha t i t wa s s af e. The ev i de nc e doesnot provi degrou nds u pon which t o find t hat defend ant ’s dr iving endang er ed himself, p ede st rians, or ot her vehicles at any tim e. Thus , we con

cl ude that Of

f i cer B l oui n l acke d prob ab l e ca

use to stop def

endan t for a vi olation of section 11-709(a). “A

n off ic er may conduct a Terry traffi

c sto p if the officer has a
reas onab l e, articulabl

e sus pi cion tha t *** (3) the v ehi cle *** i s su bj ect to sei

zure f or vio lat io n o f a la w.” People v. Matous , 38 1 I ll. A pp . 3d 91 8, 92 2 ( 20 08 )
. T he vio lat io n o f law fo rwh ich Blo uin st o pp ed de fen da nt did no t o cc ur , an d n o po lice o ffice rin Blo uin ’s po sit io n c o uld ha ve r ea so na bly believed t hat t he violat ion o ccu rr ed. Acco rd ingly, we w ou ld also find tha t t he fact s and ci rc um sta n ce s s ur rou n di n g th e traf f i c stop d i d n ot prov i de

a rea son ab l e, ar ti cul ab l e s us pi ci on to stop def en dan t bas ed on

Bloui n’ s state d reas on of

a vi ola tion of s ection 11- 709(a

). W e f i n d th at Smith doe s n

ot compel a di ff erent resul

t. In so holdi

ng, we ackn

owledge that Hackett was

dr un k a n d th e c on f i rm ati on of h i s i n eb riati on wa s th e b as i s f or h i s M oti on to Sup pre ss wh i ch the tri al cou rt gran ted . That f

ac t sh oul d n ot, h owe ve

r, d ri ve our c ons tructi on of the statute. A cc ordi

n gl y , w e h ol d th at th e tr i al cou rt p rop erl y gr an ted de f en da n t’s moti on to quas h a rrest an d sup pres s ev i den ce.1 The di ssen t, t ypi cally and predi ctabl y, resorts to ridi

cul e, hy perbole, personal

anecdotes and o bser vat ions, assa ult s o n po sitio ns no t t ake n by the majo rit y, qu ot es t ake n ou t of c ont ext , a nd f ac ts o uts i de

th e rec ord

to att ack a

l eg al an al y sis wi th wh i ch h e does n ot ag re e. If th e m aj ori ty dec ision is indee d wr ong , it sho uld be p os sible to demo nst ra t e t hat er ro r in a mat ur e and pro fessi onal counteranalysis. -10- Con trar y to the di ss en t’s i m pl i ca ti on, our dec i si

on i s n ot base d on

whether or

not def endan t swerv ed to avoid

a pothol e. Our decis ion i

s bas ed on our fi

ndi ng that Bl ouin was mistak en in his belief that defend ant ’s dr iving violat ed t he law in qu est ion. The dissent 1 as se rts t ha t "[ c] lea r ly, t he o ffice rha d p r o ba ble ca us e t o st o p t he de fen da nt fo rimpr o pe rlan e u sa ge . " S lip di ss en t at 9 . We ack

n owl ed ge th e a ttracti v en es s of th e d i ss en t’s l eg al "c on cl us i on " g i v en th at, l i teral l y , wh en one’ s lef t tires are i n the lef t la ne and right ti

res a re i n the ri ght l ane, however sl i ghtl y or briefly, o ne is no t ent irely in a single lane o f tr affic. Ho weve r, we d isagr ee w ith t he di ss en t’s con cl us i on th at Smith hel

d that merel

y pe rmi tt in g one’s ti res to brief

ly cross the center li ne i s a per sevio lat io n o f t he st at ut e b ec au se o ne is no t dr iving "a s ne ar ly as pr ac t ica ble en t ire ly wit hin one lane " o r t hat suc h act ion co nst itu t es d riving in tw o lane s o f tr affic within t he meaning of the i mproper l ane usage

statut e. Th us , w e c l ari f

y th at ou r f i n di n g i s n ot th at B l oui

n pr ov i de d n

o tes ti mon y f rom wh i ch to f i n d th at al l pa rts of de f en da nt’ s v eh i cl e w ere not a t al l ti mesph y si cal l y wi thi n a si ngl e l an e of t r affic , bu t r at he rt ha t Blo uin pr o vid ed no t es t imo ny fr o m wh ich t o find t ha t an o ffice rin his positi on could reasonab ly bel ie ve that defe

ndan t was actuall

y dri vi ng i n two lan es and was therefore engaged in im

pr op er lane us age in violat ion o f the st at ut e. Base d o n Blou in’s t est imony and c ons iste nt wit h Smith , w e h ol d th at th e tr i al cou rt p rop erl y gr an ted de f en da n t’s moti on to-11-

quash arrest and s

uppress evi

dence. CONCLUSION The ci rcuit court o f W

il l C ounty’s order i s af

fi rmed. Af fi rmed. JUSTICE SCH

MIDT, di ssen

tin g: This ca se sho uld have been r eso lved by a su mmary or der re ver sing t he t rial co ur t and
rem andi ng f or fu rther proceed

i ngs . Smith and the pl

ai n l anguage of

the statut e control. A poli ce officer st op ped defend ant aft er wat ching de fendant swe rve t wice a cr os s a lane d ivider line. T he roadway was f

la t and straigh

t. The second swerve took place approxi ma tely fi ve seconds

after the fi rst. Each tim

e defe ndan t swerved, both righ

t t ires crossed the la

ne di vi der li ne. The of

fi cer could see s

pace between

the la ne di vi der li ne an d defen dant's ri ght tires. Def

endan t was ticketed for i mproper l ane usage

and ul tim ately charged wi

th aggravated DUI (625 ILCS 5/11--501(a)(2) (We st 2008 )), an

d agg ravated dri

vi ng w hi l e l i cense re voke d (625 ILCS 5/6--3 03(d) (W est 200 8)). Afte r a sup pr essio n hear ing, t he t rial co ur t fou nd no pr oba ble cau se fo r t he t ra ffi c st op . T he maj ority aff

irm s. The major ity finds co mfort in the fa ct t hat t he o ffi cer not ed no ot her violat ions c onc er ning l ane us age, s

peed l i m i t, turn si gna l s an d traf f i c si gna l s. These obse rva tions by the m aj ority are t ot ally i rr elevant t o t he issue of w het her t he po lice officer had p ro bable ca use t o s t op t he def endan t for i m proper l ane us age a

f ter the i nc i den ts he des cri be d. The m aj ority al so stat es, "Thus the ev

ide nce supports fi

ndi ng that after def

endan t's two moment ar y swer ves Blo uin co nt inued t o fo llow him while defend ant , w itho ut co mmi t t ing any traffi c vi olation, n egotiated (1) t he m

ove i nto t he l eft turn, (2) two le ft turns, and (3) compl ia nce-12-

wi th the l awsconc ern

i ng l ane us age, s

peed l i m i t, turn si gna l s, an d traf f i c si gna l s." S l i p op. at 3. I am not sur e o f the impor t of t he major ity's o bser vat ion her e. It see ms to be su gge st ing t hat t he probable cause created by the two swerves over the la ne di vi der someh

ow evaporated when defen dant was abl

e to make seve

ral other m

aneuv ers wi thout the off

ic er observi

ng an y a dditional t ra ffi c violat ions. This is so me inter est ing new law wit h no s upp or t in the e xisting law . T he
ma jori ty sh ould ex pla in how ma ny le gal ma neuvers or how far a dri

ver m ust drive after commi tt in g a tr aff ic v iolation without commi

tt in g anot her violation bef

ore t he probable cause di sa ppe ars . Pol

i ceof f i cers an d pr ose cu tors w i l l un doub tedl y wa nt to k now thi s. The f ac t i s, f rom a l egal standpoin

t, t he off ic er's f ai lure to note any a

dditional traffi c vi olations after the f

irst two (or f i rs t one f or th at m atte r) is total l

y i rre l evan t to whether th

e of f i cer had prob ab l e c au se

to stop t he de fen da nt fo rimpr o pe rlan e u sa ge . I will a dd an ex pe r ien ce - ba se d o bse rva t io n t ha t is undoubtedly

jus t as irrelevan

t as the maj ority' s observation. Once a polic e off ic er has m

ade a de term i na ti on to s top s omeon

e f or wh ate ve r vi ol ati on, the of f i cer ge ne ral l y i s n ot l ooki ng f or ot her sm all v iolations, but i s i

nstead watchi

ng the dri ver and a ls o watchin

g and l ooking f or an appropriatepl

ac e to c ond

uc t the traf f i c s top. H e or s

he i s u sual l y not i nte nt u pon se ei ng how
man y m i n or tr af f i c v i ol ati on s c an b e racke d u

p b ef oreth e stop i

s e f f ec ted . O n ce

a dec i si on to st o p is mad e, o ffice r s s t ar t t hink ing ab o ut t he ir o wn sa fet y as we ll as t he sa fet y o f t he pu blic in determi ni ng where or how t o make the stop. The m aj ority states, "Def

endan t argues, based on his testim ony, that i n the area h

e was dr iving , Br igg s is in p o o rco nd it io n a nd t ha t he may ha ve be en t ak ing ev as ive ac t io n t o av o id po t holes ." Slip o p. at 4. Dur ing defend ant 's dire ct examinat ion by his ow n at t or ney, d efenda nt test if ied as f ollows:-13- "Q. Can you describe the road co ndi tions on Briggs street as you're hea

din g northbound from that gas station to Second? A. There are t wo lanes north, t wo lanes sout h i n need of repair l

ike m any ot her roads in the Joliet area or pro babl y m ost of Ill in ois. Q. Di d y ou noti ce pothole s as

you were pro ceeding n

ort hbound on Briggs? A. T he r e w er e s ev er al o f t he m. Q. Did you have t o t ake any evasive a ct ion i n your pi ck uptru ck to av oi d d ri v i n g s trai gh t in to pot holes? A. Th ere is a p ossi

bi l i ty, y es." On cros s- exam

i na ti on, the de f en da nt wasas ke d w

he the r hi s ti res coul d have tou ch

ed or cr o ss ed o ve rt he ce nt er line a se co nd t ime. He sa id h e d id n o t be lieve so , bu t he t ho ug ht o ne t ime was possi ble. "Q. Is it possi

ble that it happen

ed twice? A . I don'

t be l i eve s o. Q. But o ne tim

e i t is possi ble? A . Wel

l , w i th th e p oth ol es

an d di f f eren t t hin gs , I - - I wo ul d i mag ine t ha t I pr o ba bly did m ove towards the

cen ter of th e road."-14-

Even wh en coached b

y h is own atto rney

durin g direct exa

mi nation, def

endan t did not say that he swerved to avoid a pothole. His strongest t estim ony was that there was a possi bi li ty that he sw er ve d t o av o id a po t ho le. T he po lice o ffice rt es t ified t ha t he sa w n o po t ho les , did no t hit any po t holes , a nd did not need t o t ake evas ive act ion t o a void any po t holes while dr iving behind defend ant on B rigg s St re et . H ow ever , e ven igno ring t he o ffi cer 's t est imony, we have no testi m ony f rom d ef endan t that he had to swerv

e to avoi d a pothole

or any ot her obs t ru ct ion. At be st , t his t es t imo ny by d efe nd an t go es t o his g uilt o rinno ce nc e o f t he ch ar ge , no t t o pr o ba ble
cause. The off

ic er testifi ed that when def

endan t swerved across the lane m arker the second tim

e, he de cided t o s t op defend ant for impro per lane us age . While he wa s no t as c onc er ned w ith t he firs t sw er ve , he felt t he se co nd sw er ve ind ica t ed a p r o ble m wit h d efe nd an t 's a bilit y t o dr ive
. T his
wa s a n a bs ol ute l y f l aw l es s exe

rci se of j udg men t on th e of f i cer' s p art. Pol

i ceof f i cers do n ot stop
ever y car fo r e ver y mi

nor t ra ffi c violat ion t hey see. This is co mmon kno wledg e. Ho weve r, t he off i cer de cided s i

nc e def endan t swerv ed pa rtia l l y i nto the r i ght-h and lane twice wi

thi n a very short pe r io d o f t ime, t ha t t he r e w as a p r o ble m. In reachi ng i ts decis ion, the m

aj ority discusses

two pr e- Smith cases : People v. Halsall

, 178 Il l . Ap p. 3d 61 7, 533 N .E.2d 535 (1989 ), and People v. Albright , 251 Ill . App. 3d 341, 622 N.E.2d 60 (1993). As the m aj ority poi

nts out, these cases

stoo d for the proposition that i mproper la ne usage does n

ot occur unle ss def

endan t endangers h

im self, pedestri ans, or ot her veh ic le s when h e m akes a m ov e ou t of h i s l an e of tra f f i c. Sl i p op . a t 4- 5. T h e m aj ori ty con ce de s th at Halsall and Albright

ar e no lo nge r g o o d la w in lig ht o f Smith . N on eth el es s, i t sta tes , " The d

ri v i n g i n b oth Halsall and Albright

waspotential

l y more dan

gerous than def endan t's d ri vi ng i n the ca se b ef

ore-15-

us n ow." Sl i p op. at 5. Of

wh at possi

bl e rel ev ance is a c omp ari son to the def endan t's d ri vi ng h ere and the dri

vi ng of the Halsall

and Albright

defend ant s? In Smith , th e supr

em e c ourt s pe cif i cal l y rej ec ted de f en da nt' s a rgu men t "th at a vi ol ati on of
se cti on 11 -7 09 (a) d oes

n ot oc cu r w h en a m otorist momentar

ily crosses over a l ane l

in e, but
o cc ur s o nly wh en a mo t o r ist en da ng er s o t he r s w hile mo ving fr o m a la ne o f t r affic
. " ( E mph as is adde d.) Smith , 1 72 I ll. 2d a t 296 . O ur sup re me co ur t held t hat "Onc e [ t he o ffi cer ] sa w de fendant
cross o ver a lan

e li ne and driv

e in two lan es of traffi

c, [t he off icer] had probable cause to arr est defendan t for a violation of the Code." Smith , 17 2 I l l . 2d at 2 97 . N on eth

el es s, th e m aj ori ty "[does] not r ead Smith as holdin g that any tim e a m ot orist veers m

omen taril y a nd m in im ally over a lane line he o r she is driving in mor e t han o ne lane o f tr affic." S lip op . a t 7. Again, not wit hst anding t he clea r lang uag e in Smith , t he major ity ho lds "[ t ]he re ar e t oo many innocent circu msta nces t hat might c aus e a mo t or ist t o mo menta rily and inadver t ent ly i nch ac ro ss a lane di vi der to f i nd th at such acti on, wi

thout m ore crea tes prob ab l e ca

use to arrest." S l i

p op. at 7. I
cou l d w ri te a b ook a b out th at s en ten ce al on e wi th out tou ch i n g th e rest of th e m aj ori ty' s res ultorientated deci si on. We are not talki ng ab out murder or treason here, we are talki ng ab out vi ola tions of the traf f i c code i n w hi ch the d ri ver's good i nten tions an d/or i nadve rtenc e are i rrelev an t. The l egi slature chose

f or a reas on n

ot to make i

nten t an e l em en t of a traf f i c of f en se. It recogn ized th e obv i ous: i nadve rtenc e ki l l s. T he majo r it y t he n ma ke s a n a mus ing run at dis t ing uis hing t he ca se be fo r e u s fr o m Smith
. Sli p op. at 5-9. The Smith defen dant wandered across l

ane l in es twice. The

suprem e court spo ke in terms of distance, rather than tim e. The f irst tim e across the l ane l

in e, defen dant Smi th's ti res were at l east si x i nche s across the lane di

vi der f or a di stan

ce of 100 to 150 y

ards
. Smith , 17 2 I ll.-16-

2d a t 293 . O n t he se co nd incident , t he su pr eme co ur t simply st at es t hat t he o ffi

cer saw t he de fen da nt cr o ss o ve r

t he lan e line div idin g t he left lan e fr o m t he r igh t lan e b y ap pr o ximat ely s ix i nche s f or 150 to 200 y

ards
. Smith , 172 Ill . 2d at 293. We do not know what the speed l im it was
o n t he hig hw ay be ing t r av er se d b y Smit h. T he r efo r e, we ca nno t be su r e h o w lo ng Smit h ha d h is tire s across the lane l

i ne . Nonethel

ess , the m aj ority f i nds that the se w ere " si

gni f i can t" di stan ces . Sli p op. at 6. The major ity t hen go es o n t o s t at e, "In t his case , by Blo uin's o wn ad mission, d efenda nt 's ti re s on l y sl i gh tl y cross ed th e l an e d i v i der f or m ere s ec on dsb ef

orede f en da n t con ti n ue d to op erate hi s vehi cle en tirely in the lef t-hand lane of traff

ic. Instruct iv

e and in stark c ontr ast is Smith , wh ere the de f en da nt d rov e w i th h i s w he els strad

dl i ng the l an e di vi de rs by si x i nc he s on oppos i te s i de s of t he st r ee t o n t wo se pa r at e o cc as io ns, effe ct ive ly dr iving in t hr ee lan es o f t r affic fo rap pr o ximat ely 150 yard s ea ch t ime." S lip op . a t 8- 9. First of a ll, with r esp ect t o t he lat er al intr usio n into t he nei ghbori ng l ane, the Smith ti

rewa s s i x i n ch es ov er th e l i n e. I hav e n o i de a h ow wi de th e m aj ori ty t hinks a t ru ck t ire is, but t he o ffi cer in this ca se sa id he sa w a s pac e bet wee n t he lane d ivider line
and the vehi cle' s ti re. He did not el

ab orate asto how m

uch space h e sa w. Nor di

d he ne ed to. It would be an un usual tire that was not at least si x i nch es wide i tself . Of course, i

n an y n ormal vehicle, par t s o f the vehicle bo dy ext end be yond t he o ut side o f the t ire. Clear ly, par t s o f the defen dant's v ehi cl e had to have b een wel

l ove r six in ches b ey ond the li ne. Thi s would b e true had the defe ndan t been ridin

g a m ot orcycl e, let al one a m ot or vehicl e. In fa

ct, t he testim

ony was that def endan t was d ri vi ng a pi ckuptruck. Sec ond ly, with r esp ect t o t he dist ance t ra veled fo rw ar d while st ra ddling t he lane line, t he
ma jori ty poin ts out that defenda

nt here was over the l

in e for "m ere seconds" ea

ch tim e he crossed-17-

t he lan e d ivid er . Slip o p. at 8. I n a mer e s ec o nd , a v eh icle t r av eling 30 miles pe rho ur t r av els app ro ximately 45 fe et , o ne t ra veling 40 miles pe r ho ur t ra vels ap pr oximat ely 60 feet , a nd o ne traveli ng 60 m il es per hour travels

approxim

ately 90 feet. If the v

ehi cl e i s across the lane di

vi der for a m ere four seconds an

d traveli ng at 40 mi

le s per hour, the vehi

cl e has travel

ed 240 fee

t o r 80 yard s. T his is simple arit hmetic, not qua nt um physics o r r oc ket science . Whe re wo uld t he major ity dr aw t he line? In another unb elie

vab le sentence , the maj ority states, "We cons true Smith , w e believe pr op er ly and co nsist ent ly with t he su pr eme co ur t 's inte nt , t o a pply t he sit uat ions like t he o ne pr ese nt ed t o t he co ur t in that case, where the dri

ver of the v

ehi cl e actually d rives fo rso me re aso nably appr eciable d ista nce in mor e t han o ne lane o f tr affic." ( Empha sis in or iginal and added.) Sli

p op. at 8. I hate to be f

li p, but the maj ority i

nvi tes it. Thi s opin

ion would not standup to a Vin

ny Gamb in i cross-exami

nation. I can only

think of that renowned t rial lawyer's crossex am i na tion of wi tnes s Mr. T i

pton reg ardi

ng th e ti me i t too k to cook gri

ts on Ti pton' s stov e. Vin ny G amb ini w o uld un do ub t ed ly as k w he t he rt he law o f ph ysic s c ea se t o ex ist o n hig hw ays in the Thi rd District all

owing a veh ic le to travel f

or four seconds wi

th its tires in two separat e l anes and yet not be "a ct ually driving in mor e t han o ne lane o f tr affic." Wa s t his a magic p ickup t ru ck? Did t he de fendant buy his tr uck fro m the s ame gu y that so ld Jac k his bea nst alk bea ns? If t he defend ant was not act ually driving in mor e t han o ne lane o f tr affic, wha t was he "a ct ually" do ing? Just what is

a reasonabl

y a pprecia ble di stance?

How does an off

ic er decide? The

ma jori ty leaves no workable rul

e. I could wri

te a four-volum

e di ssen t o n thi s case, picki

ng apart one sill

y s entence af

ter
an o t he rin t he majo r it y o pin io n. Ho we ve r , I will s t o p h er e. T he t hr us t o f t he majo r it y o pin io n is-18-

that the maj ority be l i ev es that pol i ce shoul d not b e ab l e to stop peopl e f or mi nor traf f i c vi ola tions. I suppose we all f

eel that way wh

en we are stopped for one. Thi s i s the appel la te court ; we do not get to rewri

te the l aw b ase d upon

our f eel i ngs ab out it. Th

e su prem e court an d the l egi slature ha ve tha t powe r. W e do not. Cl

ea rl y , th e of f i cer had prob ab l e c au se

to stopthe

de f en da nt f or impro per lane us age . T he su pr eme co ur t 's de cision in Smith is not ambiguo us. Whet her t he def endan t in adverten tly or in tentional l y swe rve d twi ce acrossthe l

ane di vi der l ane i s i rrelev an t. Th e m aj ori ty opi ni on s tan dsthe l aw on i ts h ead a nd cre ate s a total l y un work ab l e s ch em e f or traf f i c law en f orcem en t. Do we app l

y the s am e an al y si s to spee di

ng? Must one sp eed f

or a "re aso nably appr eciable d ista nce" t o vio late spe ed law s? Illinois has five ap pellat e co ur t s and one sup re me co ur t . O ur sup re me co ur t do es no t have t he r es o ur ce s t o co rr ec t ev er y wr o ng ly de cid ed ap pe llat e d ec isio n. T he majo r it y un do ub t ed ly is b an ki n g on th e f ac t th at th

e c our t wi l l h av e m orepr es si n g m atte rsb ef orei t an d n ot gran t a petition f or leave to appeal on this ma tt er. Wi th all due respect, the maj ority opi nion is nonsense, pl ai n an d s i m pl e. Ev en wor se , i t en da n gersth e l

i v es of th e m otori n g p ub l i c b

y l i m i ti n g th e a b i l i ty of pol i ce of f i cersto s top e

rra ti c d ri v er s. I di ss en

t.