Source: https://www.dui-illinois-attorney.com/articles/illinois-dui-law-brief-on-alcohol-swabs-in-blood-testing-is-improper/
Timestamp: 2020-08-14 22:30:07
Document Index: 590126617

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 20', '§ 10', '§ 16', 'art 20', '§ 10', '§ 16']

» Illinois DUI Law Brief on Alcohol Swabs in Blood Testing is Improper
(2d Dist. 1996)………………………………………………………………….
Administrative Code Part 20 Section 1286.320(c) …………………………….. passim
625 ILCS 5/11-501.2 ……………………………………………………………
People v. Emrich 113 Ill.2d 343, 498 N.E.2d 1140……………………………..
People v. Glisson, 202 Ill.2d 499, 507, 782 N.E.2d 251, 256……………………
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector, ………………………….
Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244,128……………………………….
People v. Martinez, 2008 WL 4773137, 6 …………………………………………
Millennium Maintenance Management, Inc. v. County of Lake, ……………………
Allegis Realty Investors v. Novak, 223 Ill.2d 318, 331, 308 ………………………..
People v. Emrich, 113 Ill.2d 343, 349, 498…………………………………………
People v. Murphy, 108 Ill.2d 228, 234, 483 N.E.2d 1288, …………………………
People v. Ramsey, 192 Ill.2d 154, 157-158,………………………………………..
U.S. Const., art. I, § 10) ……………………………………………………………
Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 16……………………………………
People v. Shumpert, 126 Ill.2d 344, 351, 128……………………………………..
People v. Franklin, 135 Ill.2d 78, 107, 142 Ill.Dec. 152,………………………….
Brewer v. Peters, 262 Ill.App.3d 610, 613, 198 Ill.Dec. 555,……………………..
Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 49, ………………………………………….
Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169, 46 S.Ct. 68, ………………………………….
625 ILCS 5/11-501.4(a) …………………………………………………………….
People v. Bonutti, App. 5 Dist. 2003, 273 Ill.Dec. 22, 338…………………………
Goldberg v. Michael, 328 Ill.App.3d 593, 597, 262…………………………………
Scassifero v. Glaser, 333 Ill.App.3d 846, 860, 776 …………………………………
People v. Ward, 14 Misc.2d 518, 178 N.Y.S.2d 708 (1958)………………………..
Bollin v. North Dakota Dept. of Transp, 696 N.W.2d 527 (N.D.,2005)…………….
State v. Jordan 181 S.W.3d 588 (2005)……………………………………………..
A. – The statute governing blood testing clearly reflects a legislative intent that the rules in effect at the time the persons drawing and testing the blood apply, rather than later amendments to said rules
B. – The Kotecki case is distinguishable, because the validity of the hospital’s testing process was not the subject of Kotecki rule changes. Hence, the law in Kotecki was purely procedural.
C. – The legislature intended that the State Police testing standards, promulgated under 11-501.2, would apply to the testing process rather than the court process.
D. – A test that was validly performed on the date of testing should not be rendered invalid due to a subsequent rule change.
E. – Holding that the rules in effect at the time of trial govern the validity of the test would lead to absurd results.
F. – The trial court’s rulings can be upheld under any lawful basis, even if it’s reasoning was incorrect.
G. – Even under the amended rule, the results are inadmissible because the use of alcohol swabs for blood draws is not medically acceptable.
The Defendant was arrested for DUI on February 17, 2007.(C.1-4) On that date, the police had the defendants blood drawn for a DUI alcohol test. Unfortunately, it is undisputed that the disinfectant swab that was used during the Defendant’s blood draw was mistakenly contaminated with alcohol. (C. 73-77)
On the date of the defendant’s police blood draw, Administrative Code Part 20 Section 1286.320(c) of the Illinois Department of State Police Rules For Testing Of Breath, Blood, Urine for Alcohol, Other Drugs, And Intoxicating Compounds stated:
“A disinfectant that does not contain alcohol shall be used to clean the skin where a sample is to be collected.” (Emphasis added)
“The blood sample should be drawn using proper medical technique.” 31 Ill. Reg 10188 (Emergency Rule Effective July 9, 2007)
c) Accepting the State’s position that the Rules in effect not at the time of the test but rather at the time of trial applied would lead to more absurd results, for example:
The trial court agreed with the defendant’s arguments, and suppressed the results of the blood test. (c. 250-254)
(a) Upon the trial of any civil or criminal action or proceeding arising out of an arrest for an offense as defined in Section 11-501 ***, evidence of the concentration of alcohol, ***in a person’s blood or breath at the time alleged, as determined by analysis of the person’s blood, *** shall be admissible. Where such test is made the following provisions shall apply:
1. Chemical analyses of the person’s blood, *** to be considered valid under the provisions of this Section shall have been performed according to standards promulgated by the Department of State Police by a licensed physician, registered nurse, trained phlebotomist acting under the direction of a licensed physician, certified paramedic, or other individual possessing a valid permit issued by that Department for this purpose. ***The Department of State Police shall prescribe regulations as necessary to implement this Section.
20 IL ADC 1286.320 (effective on the date of defendant’s blood draw) stated:
In the instant case, one of the charges that the Defendant is facing is the felony of Aggravated Driving With a Blood Alcohol Concentration of 0.08 or More. (c. 63). Hence, the validity of the result of the blood alcohol test is the sine qua non of the offense. The Defendant is also charged with Aggravated Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. (c. 26) Under 625 ILCS 11-501.2 (a), if the blood alcohol results are at or above 0.08 and deemed ‘valid’ as compliant with the Illinois State Police standards, then under paragraph (b) of that same statute:
“It shall be presumed that the person was under the influence of alcohol.” 625 ILCS 5/11-501.2(b)
Because the manner in which the defendant’s blood was drawn, i.e. using a swab contaminated with alcohol, violated the standards in effect at the time of the occurrence, the results would be considered invalid, and hence inadmissible. See, e.g. People v. Emrich 113 Ill.2d 343, 498 N.E.2d 1140, 101 Ill.Dec. 632 (Ill.,1986). Thus, the defendant could not be convicted for driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, because the test performed on the defendant was at the time legally invalid.
“Therefore, we read the first italicized part of section 4 above to require that retroactive application of amendments or repeals in criminal statutes is permissible only if such changes are procedural in nature.”
Thus, rules of evidence that are purely procedural may be retroactively applied. However, rules governing blood alcohol are not purely procedural – they also have as their primary purpose the reliability and validity of the evidence itself. The reliability or validity of evidence is a substantive function.
The amendment in question has the effect of removing a proof obstacle from the State’s attempt to convict the defendant of having a certain blood alcohol level while driving, by forcing the result ‘to be considered valid’ under 11-501.2 of the Motor Vehicle Code.
The case relied upon by the State, People v. Kotecki, 279 IllApp.3d 1006, 666 NE2d 37 (2d Dist. 1996) is of questionable validity since the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling in Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector, 196 Ill.2d 27, 39, 749 N.E.2d 964, 971-72 (2001), where our supreme court adopted the analysis of Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 128 L.Ed.2d 229, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (1994), for determining when new legislation should be applied to existing controversies.
“In Landgraf, the United States Supreme Court recognized the presumption against retroactive legislation: “Elementary considerations of fairness dictate that individuals should have an opportunity to know what the law is and to conform their conduct accordingly.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 265, 128 L.Ed.2d at 252, 114 S.Ct. at 1497. Following Landgraf, our supreme court directed that the court’s first task is to determine whether the legislature has expressly prescribed the statute’s proper reach. Commonwealth Edison,196 Ill.2d at 37, 749 N.E.2d at 970-71. If the legislature clearly indicated what the temporal reach of an amended statute should be, then, absent a constitutional prohibition, that expression of legislative intent must be given effect. If the legislature has not indicated the temporal reach of the amendment, then the court must determine whether applying the statute would have a retroactive impact. If applying the amended version of the law would have that result, the court must presume that the legislature did not intend that it be so applied. Commonwealth Edison,196 Ill.2d at 38, 749 N.E.2d at 971.
“Where, as here, a statute does not indicate whether it operates prospectively or retroactively, the temporal reach of the statute is prescribed by section 4 of the Statute on Statutes (5 ILCS 70/4 (West 2006)), which provides that statutory amendments “that are procedural may be applied retroactively, while those that are substantive may not.” Allegis Realty Investors v. Novak, 223 Ill.2d 318, 331, 307 Ill.Dec. 592, 860 N.E.2d 246 (2006).
The laws governing the manner in which a defendant’s blood is drawn and tested, for DUI purposes, deal with validity of the result; not its admissibility. It has been held that the Rules governing the admissibility of blood alcohol tests in DUI case were intended to ensure reliability of evidence introduced in prosecutions for driving under the influence. People v. Emrich, 113 Ill.2d 343, 349, 498 N.E.2d 1140, 1142, 101 Ill.Dec. 632, 634 (Ill.,1986)
“Chemical analyses of the person’s blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance to be considered valid under the provisions of this Section shall have been performed according to standards promulgated by the Department of State Police….”(625 ILCS 11-501.2 emphasis added)
“The certification requirements are a protection afforded an accused to insure that the results of testing called for by law-enforcement officers in driving-under-the-influence cases are reliable.”
By removing the requirement that a swab be ‘alcohol-free’, the Rule change:
“Application of criminal or penal measures to events occurring before their enactment is restricted by article I, section 10, of the United States Constitution, which provides that “no State shall * * * pass any * * * ex post facto Law” (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10) and by article I, section 16, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 16), which contains similar language. Our court has held that a “law is ex post facto if it makes criminal an act that was innocent when done, if it increases the punishment for a previously committed offense, or if it alters the legal rules of evidence to make conviction easier.” People v. Shumpert, 126 Ill.2d 344, 351, 128 Ill.Dec. 18, 533 N.E.2d 1106 (1989); accord People v. Franklin, 135 Ill.2d 78, 107, 142 Ill.Dec. 152, 552 N.E.2d 743 (1990); see Brewer v. Peters, 262 Ill.App.3d 610, 613, 198 Ill.Dec. 555, 633 N.E.2d 17 (1994). A law which abolishes an affirmative defense of justification or excuse constitutes an ex post facto law because “it expands the scope of a criminal prohibition after the act *158 is done.” Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 49, 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2723, 111 L.Ed.2d 30, 43 (1990); see also Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169, 46 S.Ct. 68, 68, 70 L.Ed. 216, 217 (1925) (a law is ex post facto if it “deprives one charged with [a] crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed”).”
“A disinfectant shall be used to clean the skin where a sample is to be collected.”
This rule was then amended effective June 30, 2004 to specifically add the language “that does not contain alcohol”. 28 Ill. Reg.19176.
The Kotecki case is distinguishable, because the validity of the hospital’s testing process was not the subject of Kotecki rule changes. Hence, the law in Kotecki was purely procedural.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the results of blood tests performed for the purpose of determining the content of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds, or any combination thereof, of an individual’s blood conducted upon persons receiving medical treatment in a hospital emergency room are admissible in evidence as a business record exception to the hearsay rule only in prosecutions for any violation of Section 11-501 of this Code or a similar provision of a local ordinance, or in prosecutions for reckless homicide brought under the Criminal Code of 1961, [FN1] when each of the following criteria are met:
(1) the chemical tests performed upon an individual’s blood were ordered in the regular course of providing emergency medical treatment and not at the request of law enforcement authorities;
(2) the chemical tests performed upon an individual’s blood were performed by the laboratory routinely used by the hospital; and
(3) results of chemical tests performed upon an individual’s blood are admissible into evidence regardless of the time that the records were prepared.
Lastly, the Kotecki case involved a law governing admissibility only, whereas the instant case involves an administrative rule change by an agency. The agencies’ function does not allow it to create rules governing the court’s procedures. Rather, it only is charged with rules governing the validity of the testing process.
“The amendment at issue neither enlarged the punishment, nor criminalized conduct which was legal when committed, nor changed the quality or degree of the offense. Moreover, it did not alter the law so as to require less proof, in amount or degree, to convict.” People v. Kotecki, 279 Ill.App.3d 1006, 1013, 666 N.E.2d 37, 41, 216 Ill.Dec. 869, 873 (Ill.App. 2 Dist.,1996)
Then, effective June 30, 2004 Rule 1286.320 (c) was amended to specifically add the language “that does not contain alcohol”. 28 Ill.Reg. 19176.
Thus, under the State’s argument in this appeal, if a blood test was performed on a defendant in between 2001 and 2004 using an alcohol based swab (which was valid under the rules), but the trial did not occur until after June 30, 2004 (when the alcohol-free requirement was added), then the test result was barred.
Testing personnel such as doctors, nurses, lab technicians and police personnel should have the legality of their conduct determined based on the laws in effect at the time of the actions they performed, rather than basing them on laws that were changed or amended at a later date. “Elementary considerations of fairness dictate that individuals should have an opportunity to know what the law is and to conform their conduct accordingly.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 265, 128 L.Ed.2d at 252, 114 S.Ct. at 1497. Thus, if the nurse used a swab laced with alcohol when the law prohibited it, it is an improper procedure.
Example 1 — the Rules require that a breath operator to be licensed by the Department. On the date of the defendants arrest and test, the breath operator was in fact licensed. Months later, at the time of trial, the operator’s license has expired – according to the State’s arguments, the results are inadmissible.
Example 2 — on January 1, 2007, the defendant failed a breath test on the then-approved Intoxilyzer 5000. Effective May 1, 2007, the Intoxilyzer 5000 was removed from the approved list of breath tests. See 1286 Ill. Admin. Code 210.If his trial occurs after May 1, 2007, under the State’s argument, the result is inadmissible.
Example 3 — the Rules require that the person who performed the blood draw must be a licensed physician, phlebotomist, or nurse acting under the direction of a licensed physician – what happens if that person is no longer so employed at the time of trial? According to the state, the result is inadmissible.
D. The trial court’s rulings can be upheld under any lawful basis, even if it’s reasoning was incorrect.
As argued throughout this brief, there are ample reasons, in addition to or as an alternative to the trial court’s reasoning, to affirm suppression of the blood test result.
Even under the amended rule, the results are still inadmissible because the use of alcohol swabs for blood draws is not a “proper medical technique”.
“The blood sample should be drawn using a proper medical technique.”
“The disinfectant used for cleansing the venipuncture site should not contain alcohol or other volatile substances… Studies by Dubowski and Essary have revealed that blood specimens can be significantly contaminated if alcohol containing sponges are used to cover the venipuncture site at the time when the needle is withdrawn from the vein while attached to the tubes…”
According to NCCLS “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has evaluated and recognized this approved-level consensus guideline for use in satisfying a regulatory requirement.” (c.137)
The manufacturer of the blood testing tubes contained in the DUI kits, Becton Dickinson, also states in it’s blood collection materials under Specimen Collection and Handling “Do not use alcohol based cleansing materials when samples are used for blood alcohol testing. (c. 186)
Other toxicology sites also emphasize non-alcohol swabs. Toxexpert’s materials state:
“Proper blood draw techniques are crucial to the integrity of the sample. …Thus, the prospective puncture site must be cleansed with a non-alcoholic swab and with proper mechanical movement, to minimize drawing microbes into the syringe.”
In “Contamination of Blood Specimens for Alcohol Analysis during Collection” Abstracts and Reviews in Alcohol Driving (no.2) 3-7, Dr. Dubowski (c. 198-203) writes:
“We urge that three precautions be invariably used….in collecting blood for alcohol determination: 1) Avoid use of ethanol, isopropanol or other volatile organic substance for skin cleansing prior to venipuncture or capillary blood collection by skin puncture 2) use only dry sterile gauze when covering the puncture site during needle removal; 3) when using evacuated collection tubes, remove the tube from the collection needle and holder before withdrawing the needle from the puncture site.”(c.202)
In Bollin v. North Dakota Dept. of Transp. 696 N.W.2d 527 (N.D.,2005) it was held that the results of blood test were not admissible in administrative proceeding to suspend motorist’s driver’s license for driving under the influence of alcohol; where the form used in connection with taking the blood sample indicated that nurse used disinfectant in blood-sample kit and unidentified alternative disinfectant, deputy could not clearly remember which disinfectant was used by nurse, and the state toxicologist stated that she could not testify to accuracy of results without knowing which alternative disinfectant was used.
Also in the record on appeal are the regulations prohibiting alcohol swabs in DUI cases from the State Police or department of Health Agencies from Ohio (c.276) and Missouri (see, e.g. State v. Jordan 181 S.W.3d 588 (2005) (stating that a non-alcoholic antiseptic must be used)(c.277-284). Also included are the states of West Virginia (c. 301-308)(“cleanse the site with alcohol free prep pad provided”) and California (c. 316-317(“Alcohol or other volatile organic disinfectants are NOT USED to clean the skin where a specimen is to be collected”) and Idaho(c. 318-322)(“The skin of the area of puncture shall be cleansed thoroughly and disinfected with an aqueous solution of a nonvolatile antiseptic. Alcohol or other phenolic solutions shall not be used as a skin antiseptic”)
Thus, it appears to be practically universal that the use of an alcohol contaminated swab or disinfectant in this matter is prohibited and an unacceptable “medical technique” even under the newest version of the Illinois State Police Rules.
As such, this court can also uphold the suppression of the blood alcohol test in this matter because there is ample support in the record for such a determination, “regardless of the basis relied upon by the trial court.” Scassifero v. Glaser 333 Ill.App.3d 846, 860, 776 N.E.2d 859, 871, 267 Ill.Dec. 487, 499 (Ill.App. 2 Dist.,2002)
For all of the reasons stated herein, this Honorable Court should affirm the trial court’s ruling suppressing the blood test where a contaminated alcohol swab was used.