_____________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

2018 IL App (3d) 170361 

Opinion filed December 18, 2018 

IN THE 

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS 

THIRD DISTRICT 

2018 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court 

ILLINOIS, ) of the 12th Judicial Circuit, 

) Will County, Illinois, 

Plaintiff- Appellant, ) 

) Appeal No. 3-17-0361 

v. ) Circuit No. 17-DT-404
 

)
 

LOUIS A. RACILA, ) Honorable
 

) Carmen J. Goodman, 

Defendant- Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding. 

JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 

Justices McDade and Schmidt concurred in the judgment and opinion. 

OPINION 

¶ 1 Defendant, Louis A. Racila, filed a petition to rescind the summary suspension of his 

driver’s license following his arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 

5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2016)). The trial court granted the petition, and the State appeals. We 

reverse and remand with instructions. 

¶ 2 On April 6, 2017, Officer Benjamin Gilbert stopped defendant for speeding and cited him 

for DUI. As a result, defendant received notice of summary suspension of his driver’s license. 

Gilbert’s sworn report stated that defendant was driving 16 miles per hour over the posted speed 

limit, had open cans of alcohol in his vehicle, displayed slurred speech, and had glassy and 
 

 

 

 

 

watery eyes. The report also indicated that defendant had not completed the standardized field 

sobriety tests as instructed. Defendant filed a petition to rescind the summary suspension, 

alleging, among other things, that the officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that he 

had been driving under the influence of alcohol. 

¶ 3 At the hearing, Gilbert testified that he “clocked” defendant’s vehicle traveling 46 miles 

per hour in a 30 mile-per-hour zone. He made a U-turn and followed defendant’s vehicle for a 

few blocks before pulling him over. He approached defendant’s side of the vehicle and had a 

brief conversation with him. Gilbert testified that defendant responded appropriately to his 

questions but characterized his speech as “slurred.” Defendant gave Gilbert his driver’s license 

but could not find proof of insurance in the vehicle. Gilbert then asked defendant to exit the 

vehicle, and defendant cooperated with his request. He told defendant he was going to perform 

some field sobriety tests. He performed the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test. He then 

asked defendant to complete the walk-and-turn test. Gilbert testified that defendant had difficulty 

keeping his right foot in front of his left during the instruction phase and lifted his arms to help 

keep his balance as he completed the test. 

¶ 4 Next, Gilbert administered the one-leg-stand test. Gilbert told defendant to start counting 

when he lifted his leg. Defendant started to sway around the number 13; at 16, he started hopping 

to his left. Gilbert then asked defendant to complete a breath test, after which Gilbert placed 

defendant under arrest for DUI. 

¶ 5 On cross-examination, Gilbert testified that he had received and passed DUI training at 

the police academy. He stated that, when he initially spoke with defendant, he noticed that 

defendant had glassy, watery eyes and slurred speech. He also detected the odor of alcohol 

2 
 

 

 

emitting from defendant’s breath. In addition, he noticed a case of beer and three open beer cans 

lying in the back seat of the car. 

¶ 6 Gilbert then explained the field sobriety tests in greater detail. He stated that during the 

HGN test, defendant exhibited a “lack of smooth pursuit” with distinct and sustained nystagmus 

at maximum deviation. He testified that the HGN test has six factors that indicate consumption 

and defendant exhibited all six. Regarding the walk-and-turn test, Gilbert testified that defendant 

began the test prior to the completion of his instructions. Defendant was told three times to keep 

his feet placed on an imaginary line before he was able to do so. While defendant was in the 

starting position, he was unable to maintain his balance, stepped off the line, and once again 

started the test without being told to do so. During the test, defendant made an improper turn, 

used his arm for balance and stepped off the line. Gilbert testified that two or three of the eight 

factors in the walk-and-turn test typically indicate impairment and defendant exhibited five. 

Finally, Gilbert testified that the one-leg-stand test requires a minimum of two factors to indicate 

impairment and defendant indicated four. 

¶ 7 Gilbert asked defendant to take a breath test using a portable device (PBT). The PBT 

registered a blood concentration of 0.099. Gilbert asked defendant when defendant had his last 

drink, and defendant responded 2 p.m. Gilbert testified that at that point he was of the opinion 

that defendant had consumed alcoholic beverages and could not safely operate a motor vehicle. 

¶ 8 The video from Gilbert’s squad car was also admitted into evidence. In the video, Gilbert 

asks defendant if he has consumed any alcohol or drugs. Defendant says, “No, absolutely not.” 

Gilbert then asks if defendant has any previous tickets or convictions. Defendant responds, “No, 

not in the last five years...I mean I had a DUI in 2012.” Gilbert says “ok, but nothing else,” and 

defendant says, “No.” He then asks defendant and the passenger, “What’s going on with the open 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

beer cans in the back?” Defendant says that he and the passenger had them at work. The 

passenger says, “I drank them. That’s why he’s driving and I’m not.” Gilbert goes to his squad 

car and then returns and asks defendant to exit the vehicle. Defendant does so voluntarily, 

without incident, and they both walk to the back of defendant’s car. Gilbert informs defendant 

that he is going to have him take a few tests. 

¶ 9 During the walk-and-turn test, defendant has trouble standing on a straight line while he 

is waiting for instructions. He asks Gilbert if he can take his shoes off, and Gilbert says, “Sure.” 

Defendant starts the test before Gilbert is finished with the instructions. He then apologizes and 

goes back to the starting position. Gilbert moves to the side so defendant can walk forward. 

Defendant sways to the right, loses his balance, and moves his right foot off to the side to 

maintain his equilibrium. He then starts the test again before he is told to do so. Once he starts 

the test, he uses his arms to stay balanced and steps off the line twice to keep from losing his 

footing. On the one-leg-stand test, defendant loses his balance as he counts past 13 and then hops 

to the left several times as he counts to 17 and 18. As he starts to fall to the left, he puts his foot 

down and stops the test. Gilbert then tells defendant to stay put and walks back to his squad car. 

When he returns from the squad car, he has a portable device in his hand and asks defendant to 

blow into it. Defendant agrees to do so and blows into the tube. Gilbert again asks defendant how 

many drinks he has had. Defendant admits that he drank alcohol but says that he had his last 

drink at 2 p.m. Gilbert asks defendant to put his hands behind his back and informs him that he is 

under arrest for DUI. At the end of Gilbert’s testimony, the State moved for a directed finding, 

which the trial court denied. 

¶ 10 During the State’s case-in-chief, Gilbert testified that he stopped defendant’s vehicle 

around 7 p.m. Defendant’s first response regarding how much alcohol he had consumed was that 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

he had nothing to drink, but he later responded that he had a beer at 2 p.m. When asked why he 

gave the officer conflicting responses, defendant replied, “I do not recall why I did that.” He 

admitted that he had two beers around 2 p.m. 

¶ 11 The trial court found in favor of defendant and granted the petition to rescind. Regarding 

the field sobriety tests, the court stated that “[t]he fields are just a factor. A lot of people can’t do 

the fields.” It acknowledged, however, that having open alcohol would be a factor along with the 

field sobriety tests. As for the field sobriety tests, the court stated that it “didn’t see any balance 

problems whatsoever.” The court found that Gilbert lacked probable cause to arrest defendant for 

DUI and granted the petition to rescind his summary suspension. 

¶ 12 ANALYSIS 

¶ 13 The State argues that the trial court erred in granting the petition to rescind defendant’s 

statutory summary suspension. Specifically, the State contends that the evidence at the hearing 

established that Gilbert had reasonable grounds to believe defendant committed a DUI violation. 

¶ 14 At a hearing to rescind statutory summary suspension, a defendant carries the burden of 

making a prima facie case for rescission. People v. Kavanaugh, 362 Ill. App. 3d 690, 695 (2005). 

Once the defendant has done so, the burden of presenting evidence to justify the suspension 

shifts to the State. Id. A reviewing court must be deferential to the trial court’s factual findings 

and reverse those findings only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. 

Wear, 229 Ill. 2d 545, 561 (2008). A reviewing court is free, however, to assess the facts and 

draw conclusions and, thus, review de novo the legal ruling on whether a petition to rescind 

should have been granted. Id. at 562. 

¶ 15 The issue at the summary suspension hearing in this case was whether the arresting 

officer had reasonable grounds to believe that defendant was driving while under the influence of 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

alcohol. In this context, “reasonable grounds” is synonymous with “probable cause.” Id. at 560. 

“Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts known to the officer at the time of the arrest are 

sufficient to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that the arrestee has committed a 

crime.” Id. at 563. A probable cause determination must be based upon the totality of the 

circumstances and must rise to a level higher than mere suspicion but less than proof beyond a 

reasonable doubt. People v. Lee, 214 Ill. 2d 476, 484 (2005). As this court has noted: 

“ ‘Probable cause to arrest a motorist for DUI has been commonly 

established by the testimony of the arresting officer, in spite of the defendant’s 

contradictory testimony, that the motorist had about him or her the odor or strong 

odor of alcohol, had slurred speech or had red and glassy eyes. [Citations.] 

Generally, these observations are supplemented by other observations apparent to 

the officer or inferred from his observations such as speeding, weaving, erratic 

driving, driving on the wrong side of the road, being stuck in a ditch [citation] or 

*** being in a vehicle which is stuck in the mud.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) People v. 

Day, 2016 IL App (3d) 150852, ¶ 36 (quoting People v. Wingren, 167 Ill. App. 3d 

313, 320-21 (1988)). 

¶ 16 Here, Gilbert testified that he smelled the odor of alcohol on defendant’s breath and that 

defendant had glassy, watery eyes. He further testified that defendant failed the HGN test and 

struggled with balance on both the walk-and-turn test and the one-leg-stand test. The video 

supports the officer’s assessment of defendant’s performance. On the video, defendant stumbles 

to the right and loses his balance during the walk-and-turn test and hops to the left and puts his 

foot down to maintain his balance on the one-leg-stand test. In addition, defendant had open cans 

of beer in his vehicle and admitted that he had consumed alcohol. Given defendant’s physical 

6 
 

 

 

 

signs of alcohol consumption, open cans of alcohol in the vehicle, admission of alcohol 

consumption, and failed field sobriety tests, Gilbert had reasonable grounds to believe defendant 

was driving under the influence of alcohol. 

¶ 17 In People v. Rush, 319 Ill. App. 3d 34 (2001), the defendant was arrested for DUI and 

served with a written notice of statutory summary suspension. Defendant moved to suppress the 

State’s evidence and filed a petition to rescind his suspension, arguing that the arresting officer 

did not have reasonable grounds to believe that he was driving under the influence of alcohol. 

Rush, 319 Ill. App. 3d at 35. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion and petition to 

rescind, and the State appealed. The appellate court found that the officer had probable cause to 

arrest the defendant for DUI when the defendant had slurred but understandable speech, smelled 

strongly of alcohol, admitted to drinking several beers the night before, had open alcohol in his 

car, failed one of the field sobriety tests, had “jerking” eyes during the HGN test, and registered 

an alcohol concentration of 0.07 on the preliminary breath test. Id. at 40-41. In this case, 

defendant exhibited similar indicators of impairment, with the addition of a higher preliminary 

breath test reading and failing all the administered field sobriety tests. These facts demonstrate 

that Gilbert had probable cause to arrest defendant for DUI. Thus, the trial court erred in granting 

the petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension. 

¶ 18 In support of his contention that Gilbert did not have probable cause to arrest him for 

DUI, defendant cites Day, 2016 IL App (3d) 150852. However, this case is readily 

distinguishable. In Day, the defendant was pulled over for excessive noise emanating from his 

exhaust pipe; no other driving infractions were noted. In addition, the field tests were 

administered in the rain, and the arresting officer admitted that they should have been given on a 

flat, dry surface. This court determined that the field sobriety tests were administered in an 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

improper fashion due to the officer requesting that they be performed on a wet surface in the 

rain. We stated that the improper administration significantly impaired the probative weight that 

could be given to those tests. We concluded that the defendant’s performance of the field 

sobriety tests did not give the arresting officer probable cause to arrest him for DUI and that the 

defendant’s consumption of alcohol and his bloodshot eyes, without more, did not give the 

officer reason to believe the defendant had been driving under the influence of alcohol. Day, 

2016 IL App (3d) 150852, ¶ 38. 

¶ 19 In this case, the facts are distinguishable. The field sobriety tests given to defendant were 

not administered in the rain or in an otherwise improper manner. As demonstrated in the video, 

the weather was clear, and the pavement was dry and level. Moreover, there are additional facts 

that support defendant’s arrest for DUI. Specifically, defendant was stopped for speeding, which 

is an observation that supplements other observations made by an officer in support of probable 

cause to arrest a motorist for DUI. See Rush, 319 Ill. App. 3d at 35. Defendant’s breath also 

smelled of an alcoholic beverage, he had open cans of beer in the car, and he admitted that he 

had been drinking. These additional factors, which were not present in Day, support Gilbert’s 

probable cause to arrest defendant for a DUI violation. 

¶ 20 Under the circumstances, we conclude that Gilbert had probable cause (or reasonable 

grounds) to believe that defendant had been operating a motor vehicle while under the influence 

of alcohol. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order granting defendant’s petition to rescind. 

¶ 21 CONCLUSION 

¶ 22 The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is reversed, and the cause is remanded 

to the trial court to enter an order denying defendant’s petition to rescind. 

¶ 23 Reversed and remanded. 

8