People v. Racila , 2018 IL App (3d) 170361 ( 2019 )

Digitally signed by
Reporter of
Decisions
Reason: I attest to
Illinois Official Reports the accuracy and
integrity of this
document
Appellate Court Date: 2019.02.25
11:56:18 -06'00'
People v. Racila, 2018 IL App (3d) 170361
Appellate Court THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
Caption LOUIS A. RACILA, Defendant-Appellee.
District & No. Third District
Docket No. 3-17-0361
Rule 23 order filed November 19, 2018
Motion to publish
allowed December 18, 2018
Opinion filed December 18, 2018
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 17-DT-404; the
Review Hon. Carmen J. Goodman, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Reversed and remanded.
Counsel on James W. Glasgow, State’s Attorney, of Joliet (Patrick Delfino, David
Appeal J. Robinson, and Stephanie L. Raymond, of State’s Attorneys
Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.
Ted P. Hammel and Kristen Messamore, of Hammel Law Offices,
P.C., of Joliet, and Terrence J. Wallace, of Lockport, for appellee.
Panel 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
emitting from defendant’s breath. In addition, he noticed a case of beer and three open beer
cans lying in the backseat 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
-2-
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 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 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
-3-
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
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 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
-4-
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. Id. 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 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. Id. ¶ 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.
-5-