No. 2-- 07--0134 Fil ed: 3-7-08

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f D e K alb Co un t y. ) Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, )

) v. ) No. 06-- DT--767 ) MARC SEVERSON, ) Ho no r ab le ) Willia m P . Br ad y, Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judge, Presi din g.

________________________________________ _____ ___________________________________ _ PR ESIDI NG JU STI CEBY

RNE de li v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Defend ant was ar re st ed fo r d riving und er the inf luen ce of alcohol (DUI) (625 I LCS 5/11--501(a)(2) (West 20 06 )). The a rre sti n g of f i cer, D e K

al b Cou n ty sher iff 's de puty Pau l De l i si o, served defend ant wit h w r it t en no t ice o f t he st at ut o ry su mmar y su sp en sio n o f his drivi ng privi leges. Acco rd ingto the notice, def endan t had ref us ed to su bm i t to tes ti ng to de term

i ne the con ten t of al coh ol or ot her dr ugs in his bl oo d. Defend ant fil

ed a pet itio n to re sci

nd the suspe

nsi on and, follow inga heari

ng, the trial

court granted the petition. The trial court concl

uded t hat defend ant had no t r efu se d t o su bmit t o t es t ing . T he St at e file d a t imely no t ice o f ap pe al. We affir m. A t the he ari ng on defen dant's peti tion, Delis io testif

ie d that de fen da nt ha d b ee n inv o lve d in a motor vehi cle ac ciden

t on Octob er 1 8, 20 06. Delisio encountered defen dant in a hospi tal eme r ge nc y ro o m at ab o ut 2 a . m. on that date. Delis io adm

in is tered t he h

orizontal gaze ny

stagmus test to de f en da n t to de ter m i n e h i s s ob riety. Acc ordi

n g to Delisio, defend ant faile d t he t es t . De lisioNo. 2-- 07--0134

-2-

then pla ced def endan t underarrest for DUI and requested that defend ant submit t o c hemical te st ing of his bloo d t o d et er mine the l ev el o f alc o ho l o ro t he rdr ug s. Be fo r e ma kin g t he r eq ue st , De lisio wa rne d d efe nd an t pu r su an t t o se ct io n 1 1-
- 50 1. 1( c) o f t he I llino is Vehi cl e Code (Code) (625 ILCS 5/11--501.1(c) (We st 2006 )) that, int er alia , re f us al to s ub m i t to t he r eq ue st ed t es t wo uld r es ult in t he su sp ensi

on of hi s drivi ng privi leges. According to Delisi o, d efendan

t's respo nse to t he request was"I res pectf ull y ref use ." De lisio 's s up er viso r , Se r ge an t Rya n B r ad en , wa s p r es en t wh en de fen da nt r efu se d t o su bmit to t est ing. B ra den info rmed defend ant t hat "und er t he circ umst ance s we co uld st ra p him do wn and ph ysic ally tak e h i s bl ood;we

don ' t wa n t to do t hat." Bra den fu rt her advise d de fendant , " We're ask ing f oryou to subm

it without a st ruggle." Delisio t est ifi ed t hat defend ant was being giv en an ot her cha nce to take t he test wi

th out h av i ng to be tie d down. Accordin g to Delis io, def

endan t "agreed to that but he wanted it not ed that he stil l ref used." Aph leb o t o mist dr ew de fen da nt 's b lo o d w it h d efe nd an t 's f ull coop era ti on . The t rial co ur t inquire d abo ut t he r esu lts o f the t est ing. D elisio re spo nded t hat t he re su l ts had j ust been recei

ved that day and t hat t he t est ingindicat ed a bloo d alco hol level exc eed ing 0.08. Bra den's testi

mony wa s s l i gh tl y dif f ere nt f rom Delis io's . Braden

testifi ed that he arriv

ed at t he hos pit al aft er defend ant had r efuse d De lisi o's re que st t o s ubmit t o t est ing. O ut side o f defend ant 's presence, Braden asked D e lisio i f h e had advi sed defendan

t t hat defendant had no right to refuse testing. Delisio r eplied t hat he had no t . B ra den s t epp ed int o d efenda nt 's ro om and explained t hat he had no righ t t o refuse testin

g. Braden added

that, if de fen

dant wanted them

t o , t he o ffice r s " wo uld note i n the report tha

t [def endan t] was re f usi ng a nd th at he wasn't vol

unta ri l y gi vi ng us h i s b l ood." Acco rd ing t o B ra den:No. 2-- 07--0134

-3- "[De f endan t] told us that he wan

ted i t to be a ref

usa l . I as ke d h im

if he wo uld fight us f or t h e b l ood or

i f we cou l d ta ke i t, a n d h e s ai d th at h e woul d n ot f i gh t an d th at he wouldn' t gi ve us a probl em of tak i ng th at bl ood." As noted, the tri al

court conc l

uded that de f endan t had not ref use d to be tested. Ac co r di ng ly, t he court gr ant ed d efenda nt 's pe t itio n t o r esc ind t he st at ut or y summary susp ensio n of his dr iving priv il eges. The trial

court deni

ed the State's motion f

or reco nsi deration, and this appeal

fol lowed. I nit ially we note that defendan

t has not fi

le d an appe l l ee' s bri ef

. Ho weve r, t he r eco rd and t he is sues rais ed

on a ppe al are suc h t hat re view o f the meri ts i s ap propriate un

der Fi rst Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandi

s Construction Corp. , 63 Il l . 2d 128 , 133 (1 976). Sec ti on 11--501.1 o f the C ode (625 ILCS 5/11- -501. 1 (West 2006)), t he so-cal le d "i mpl ie d consent law," provides

that a mo t o r ist o pe r at ing a v eh icle o n a pu blic hi ghway in Ill in ois is deem

ed to ha ve consente d that, i

f arrested f orDUI, h e or sh e wi l l su b m i t to ch emic al t es t ing t o de t er mine h is or her blood alcohol l

evel . Under the i

mpl ie d consent law, when

the arresting of

fi cer requests that t he motorist subm

i t to t esti ng, th e of f i cer m ust su bm i t a sworn report to the Sec

retary of St at e if the mot orist either ( 1) refuses to subm it to, o r fai

ls to compl ete, t estin g or (2) submi

ts to testing that r ev ea ls a bl

ood alcohol l

evel of 0.08 or more. When

the off ic er subm its such a r epo rt , t he Secre

tary of S t at e must summarily susp end t he mot or ist's dr iving priv il eges. The suspe

nsi on period i s longer when th e m otorist ref us es to s ubmit t o, or fails to co mplet e, t he r equ est ed t est s t han whe n t est ing reveals a b l ood al cohol

l evel of 0 .08 or m

ore. See 6 25 IL CS 5/6 --208.1 (a) (W est 200 6). Al thoughde f

en da n t i n i ti al l y re f us ed to s ub m i t to a bl ood te st, h e l

ate r p er m i tted h i s bl ood to be dra wn , af ter b ei ng tol d that he h

ad no r i gh t to ref us e a nd tha t hi s b l ood co uld be drawn

without his co nsent . Ac co rd ing t o t he State, be caus e def endan t stated tha

t he wan ted the off i cers to reportNo. 2-- 07--0134

-4-

that he r ef

us ed te stin g, hi s compl

ia nce di d not sign if y c onsent to havi

ng hi s bl ood dr awn. In our view, t he argu

men t ex al ts f orm ov er su b sta n ce . In es se n ce , de f en da n t' s state men t si m pl y re f l ects that he was sub

mi tt in g to testing un

der prot est. One of the purposes of the i mpl ie dco nse nt law is t o he lp law enfo rc ement officer s ga t her evidenc e fo r D UI pr os ecu t ions by induc ingm otorists to s ub m i t to testing. See People v . My ers , 130 Ill . App. 3d 68 1, 68 4 ( 19 85 ) . Whe r e, as he r e, a mo t o r ist ac t ua lly compl ie s wit h a r equ est for t est ing an d t he t es t ing is compl

eted without inc ide

nt, the form of

words he or she use s i

n respondi

ng to t he off

ic er's request sh

ould not be controll

in g. We n ote that cour ts have n ot allowed

wordplay to in ure to the defe

ndan t's advan tage, and we seeno r eas on w hy it sho uld wo rk t o t he St at e's a dvant age eithe r. In People v . Shaf fer , 261 Ill . App. 3d 304 (1994), t he def

endan t essentia ll y a tt em pted to negotiate wi

th police to t ake a

bl ood t est rather than the Breat hal

yzer test th at h

ad b een re qu ested . B ec au se

th e def en da n t wou l d n ot ag re e to take t he Breathal

yzer test despite bei

ng asked to do so more

than three tim

es, the court co ncl

uded that he had r efuse d t est ing

ev en though he reportedl y told th e arre sti ng of f i cer, " 'I a in't r efusing no t hing.' " Shaf fer , 261 Ill . App. 3d at 306-07. T he r e is no m ore rea son

to pun i sh de f en da nt f or hi s choi

ceof words i n thi s c as e th

an th ere w as

to re war d t he de fendant in Shaf fer f or hi s choi

ceof wo r ds . I n t his regard, it is

s ig nifi cant t hat t he po lice sug ges t ed t hat defend ant co uld fra me his res po nse t o t he request for testing as a ref usal , even though h

e had agreed to coo perate with the testin g. The St at e a lso emp ha siz es t ha t de fen da nt ag r ee d t o su bmit t o t es t ing o nly "o nce he reali

zed th at hi s lack of consent would not pr event the blood from bei ng obtained." The Stat e cites no authority, howev

er, that a moto rist's

reasons f or submi tt in g to testing h

ave an y l egal signifi cance. In add itio n, t he St at e r elies o n Peo ple v. DuBose , 348 Ill . App. 3d 992 (2004), whic h in volv ed a sum ma ry s uspens ion un

der section 11--50 1.6(a) of the Code ( 625 ILCS 5/1 1--501 .6(a) (WestNo. 2-- 07--0134

-5-

20 00 )). Se cti

on 11 --5 01 .6( a) perm

i ts a l aw en f orc em en t of f i cer to req

ue st te sti ng f rom a moto rist ticketed f or a n y n on eq ui pm en t v i ol ati on of th e C od e, if the mo t or ist w as invo lved in an ac cident re sult ingin per so nal injury or dea t h. I n DuBose , the def endan t was in volv ed i n an accident that resul ted in injur ies t o a not her individual. T he defen dant was arrested for DUI and was also ticketed f orf ai li n g to red uc e s pe ed to av oi d a n a cc i dent. The def

en da nt wastaken

to a l ocal hosp i tal , where t he arresting of

fi cer requested that t he def

endan t subm it to t estin g. Afte r t he de fendant re fused t he re qu est, t he arrest in

g offi cer's supervisor in

formed the defendan

t t hat, under t he ci

rcumstances, his blo o d c o uld be drawn

without hi s consen

t. See 625 ILCS 5/11--501. 6(b) (West 2000) ("if a driv er of a vehicle is r ece iving medical tr eat ment a s a r esu lt o f a mot or vehi c le accident, any

phy sici an li censed to practice med icine , r eg ist er ed nur se o r a phle bo t o mist ac t ing u nde r t he d ire ct io n o f a li censed physician shall withd ra w bloo d fo r t est ing purposes *** upon the specifi c request of a law enfo rc ement off

i cer" ). T he de fen da nt ind ica t ed t ha t he wo uld pe rmit his bloo d t o be dr awn, but he wanted i t to be report ed that he

had ref use d testi ng. Th e arre sti ng of f i cer re ported to the Se cretary of Stat e that t he de fendant had r efuse d t o s ubmit t o t est ing, a nd t he Se cr et ar y o f St at e s us pe nd ed his drivi ng privi leges. Al though DuBose is fa ct ua lly similar to thiscas e, t he iss ue r ais ed o n app ea l wa s e nt ire ly dif f eren t. The defend ant in DuBose never so ught a h ea ri ng to chal l en gethe su sp ensi on of his dr iving p rivileges. I ns

tead, h e a ttem pte d to i nv okethe doc tri ne of j udi ci al es toppe l to ba r the Sta te f rom intr od ucing ev

i denc e of the res ul ts of the bl oo d te st ing in the DUI pr os ecu t ion. A par t y asser t ing judi ci al estoppe l m ust establ i sh , int er alia , that t he opposin g party has

taken inc o nsis t en t po sit io ns in different proceedin

gs. See People v . Wi sbrock , 223 Ill . App. 3d 173, 175 ( 19 91 ) . T he de fen da nt in DuBose argued that, in obtai ni ng the su spe nsion o f his driving pr ivil ege s, t he St at e had t ake n t heNo. 2-- 07--0134

-6-

pos i ti on that he had ref

used to be tested. Acco rd ing t o t he defend ant , t hat po sitio n was incons iste nt wi th the State 's

use of the ev

i den ce i n the DUI p

rosecu tion . We dis ag

re ed . We rea son

ed th at, because the Stat e could h ave taken the def

endan t's bl ood w itho ut h

i s c ons en t, th e f ac t tha t bl ood t est ingwa s p er fo rmed did no t ne ce ss ar ily imply t ha t t he de fen da nt ha d c o nse nt ed t o ha vin g b l ood dr awn. DuBose , 3 48 I ll. App. 3d a t 996 . T hus, t he St at e's p os itio n in susp ending t he de fendant 's dr iving pr ivil ege s wa s no t nece ssar ily

incons iste nt wit h t he intr od uct ion o f the bloo d-t est re sult s. We did not ho ld, however, that the St ate was correct in its p os itio n t hat t he defen

dant had ref

used testing. Because th e def

en da n t h ad n ot s oug h t a hear ing t o c hallenge t he su mmary susp ensio n, t he meri ts of the State 's

posi tion were not be f ore us. Th

us, DuBose is

in apposite. The r ec o r d s up po rt s t he t r ia lcourt' s c on cl us i on th at def en da n t di d n ot re f us e to s ub m i t to t est ingof h

i s b l ood. Acc ordi

ngl y , we h old that the tria l court di d not err i n re sci ndi ng th e statutory sum mary sus pens ion o f defend ant 's driv in g priv il eges. In so holdin

g, we are cognizant that, given Delisio's testi

mon y ab out th e b l ood- test re su

l ts, de f en da n t m ay h av e b een su b j ect to ha ving his dr iving priv il eges sus pend ed o n t he basis of h is bl ood alcohol l

evel . However, defen

dant's dri vi ng pri vi le ges were suspen ded so lely on t he bas is tha t he r efuse d t est ing, a nd we do not believe t he suspension ma y be up he ld o n t he alt er na t ive ba sis of bl ood-te st re sul

ts th at w ere ne ve r re porte d to the Se cre

tary of Sta te and tha t were a ppare ntl y f i rs t made available t o law enfo rc ement officials o n t he da y of t he res ciss i on he ari ng . Ha d de f en da nt' s d ri vi ng pri vi l eg esbe en su sp en de d b as ed on the blood-t est results, t he sus pens ion wo uld have been s hor t er t han t he su spe nsion d ef enda n t recei ved wh en i t was er r o ne o us ly

rep orted to t h e S ec re ta ry

of State tha t de f en da nt h ad ref us ed tes ti ng . Se cti

on 2- -1 18. 1( b) of t he Co de p ro vides, in per t inent p ar t , t hat at t he co nclusio n of a re scissio n hear ing"t he cir cu it co ur t sha ll su st aino rr es cin d t he su sp en sio n a nd immed iat ely noti f y the Se cretary

of State ."No. 2-- 07--0134

-7-

625 ILCS 5/2--118.1(b) (West 2006). There is n o pro vi sion for reduci

ng th e pe rio d o f the sus pe ns i on . The s

us pen si on ca n n ot b e s ustai n ed , s o th e tr

i al cou rt p rop erl

y re sc i n de d i t. Furtherm ore, a fai r judi ci al heari ng on a peti

tion to rescin

d a statut ory sum

ma ry s uspens ion requi

res that the de f en da nt h ave n oti ceof t he ba sis of the suspension. To upho ld a suspens ion based on test re su l ts t hat wer e unk now n befo re t he hear ing wo uld co mpro mise the fairness of t he pr oc eed ingand dep rive t he de fendant of a meaningful o ppo rt unit y to challenge t he su spe nsion. Fo rt he fo r eg o ing r ea so ns, t he jud gme nt o f t he cir cu it cou rt of De Kal b Cou n ty is aff irm ed. Af fi rmed. O' MA LLEY an d GRO METER, J

J., con cur.