Court Opinion

ID: 9709275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:43:59.90616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:47.336410
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McLaren, dissenting: In my opinion the majority has either reduced probable cause to a mere suspicion or has disregarded the “U” in DUI. Two trial court judges found no probable cause as to the motion to quash arrest and no reasonable grounds as to the motion to rescind the summary suspension, respectively. In People v. Bafia (1983), 112 Ill. App. 3d 710, 716, this court discussed the phrase “reasonable grounds” as contained in the Illinois implied consent law and stated: “ ‘Reasonable grounds’ and ‘probable cause’ for purposes of arrest are synonymous [citations] and is [sic] present where the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officers are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe an offense has been committed by the person arrested. This standard requires more than mere suspicion, but does not require the officer to have in hand evidence *** to convict. *** The determination of whether an officer has sufficient information on which to properly act is based upon all of the facts and circumstances of each case and in a manner which is not unduly technical.” A definition of probable cause is much less important than the facts of the case at hand. Nevertheless, courts, particularly in judging probable cause for arrest, have attempted to define the term. A frequently used definition comes from Brinegar v. United States (1949), 338 U.S. 160, 93 L. Ed. 1879, 69 S. Ct. 1302, where, partly relying upon language from Carroll v. United States (1925), 267 U.S. 132, 69 L. Ed. 543, 45 S. Ct. 280, the court declared that probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge and of which they" had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed. Quantifying probable cause is difficult. Many courts have said that what is required is more than mere suspicion but less than is necessary to convict. See, e.g., People v. Jones (1959), 16 Ill. 2d 569, 573. In most DUI prosecutions other than those initiated under the per se law, the primary issue will be whether the evidence proves the defendant to be “under the influence.” Mere consumption of alcoholic beverages does not establish intoxication. (People v. Togher (1970), 127 Ill. App. 2d 141 (abstract of opinion).) Further, testimony that the breath of the accused smelled of alcohol is not sufficient to prove that a person was intoxicated. People v. Thomas (1975), 34 Ill. App. 3d 578, 580; People v. Winfield (1973), 15 Ill. App. 3d 688, 690. The law prohibits a person from driving a vehicle after having consumed an amount of alcohol that has caused him “ ‘not to be himself, so as to be excited from it, and not to possess that clearness of intellect and control of himself that he otherwise would have’ ” (People v. Leiby (1952), 346 Ill. App. 550, 554, quoting Osborn v. Leuffgen (1942), 381 Ill. 295, 299), or, as has been repeated in a number of cases, “less able, either mentally or physically, or both, to exercise clear judgment, and with steady hands and nerves operate an automobile with safety to himself and to the public.” People v. Seefeldt (1983), 112 Ill. App. 3d 106, 108; People v. Sullivan (1971), 132 Ill. App. 2d 674, 677; Winfield, 15 Ill. App. 3d at 690; People v. Wheatley (1972), 4 Ill. App. 3d 1088, 1090. The findings of the trial judge will not be overturned on appeal unless such findings are palpably against the manifest weight of the evidence. (In re Trainor (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 918, 921.) “A judicial finding of fact is not against the manifest weight of the evidence unless from the record an opposite conclusion is clearly evident.” People v. Jacquith (1984), 129 Ill. App. 3d 107, 117. The facts in this case are few due in great part to the arresting officer’s lack of deliberation prior to making the arrest. The accident appears to have been caused by the tow truck operator, who failed to yield while turning left. The accident does not manifestly imply that the defendant was “under the influence.” The officer observed a bleeding head wound which reasonably could have caused the slurred speech. The slurred speech does not manifestly imply “under the influence.” The odor of alcohol may imply the “consumption of alcohol” but that is the only inference that may be drawn. (People v. Holtz (1974), 19 Ill. App. 3d 781, 788.) I submit the same and only inference regarding consumption of alcohol may be drawn from bloodshot eyes. “Bloodshot eyes” and “odor of alcohol” are qualitative rather than quantitative analyses. Qualitative analysis is to detect an element or substance in a sample. Quantitative analysis is to determine the amounts of elements or groups in a sample. (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1858, 1859 (1981).) I am aware of no authority stating that depending upon the strength or weakness of the odor or the extent of bloodshot eyes, a reasonable person could extrapolate and reasonably opine as to “under the influence.” Thére are cases such as Holtz, in which, depending upon the strength or weakness of the odor or the extent of bloodshot eyes, a reasonable person could extrapolate and reasonably opine as to whether alcohol had been consumed. Every case in which probable cause was sustained contained additional evidence in the nature of admissions and/or observations of the defendant or observations of defendant’s vehicle, which established “under the influence” as defined above. The cases cited by the majority fall into this category. (See People v. Sanders (1988), 176 Ill. App. 3d 467, 468 (defendant’s breath smelled of alcohol, his speech was slurred, his eyes were glassy, and he admitted he fell asleep behind the wheel and ran off the road, and he was argumentative); People v. Wingren (1988), 167 Ill. App. 3d 313, 316-17 (defendant’s breath smelled of alcohol, her speech was slurred, her eyes were glassy and red, and she failed two sobriety tests, staggered, and had to use a wall to hold herself up); People v. Wagner (1987), 152 Ill. App. 3d 34, 36 (defendant’s breath smelled of alcohol, his speech was slurred and he admitted that he had drunk six beers and two shots).) In the case at bar, the officer had probable cause to believe the defendant drove a vehicle and had consumed alcohol at the time he effected the arrest. At best, he had a suspicion that the defendant was under the influence. Significantly, none of the additional facts present in the above cited cases were present here. He did not inquire if the defendant had been drinking; he did not observe her driving the car; he did not observe her outside the car; no sobriety tests were given. Precipitously, the officer effected the arrest upon mere suspicion, not upon probable cause. I am unable to agree with the majority’s determination that the decisions of the trial court were manifestly erroneous or against the manifest weight of the evidence. In conclusion, I believe the majority has either misapplied the proper standard of review or it has reduced probable cause to mere suspicion. As an aside, the issue of collateral estoppel is inappropriate in this appeal. The second trial judge allowed the State to present any evidence it desired. The State said it had no other evidence to present other than the transcripts of the prior hearing. Such a procedure does not constitute collateral estoppel because the State had a full hearing to the extent it so desired. Therefore, I would affirm the trial courts and must accordingly dissent.