§ 3.5 Court Action
§ 3.5-1 Motion to Quash Arrest
§ 3.5-1(a) Denied Properly
People v. Greco, 336 Ill. App. 3d 253, 783 N.E.2d 201, 270 Ill. Dec. 626 (2d Dist. 2003). Defendant was arrested for driving while cannabis was present in his blood or urine. He filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. At the hearing, defendant was the only witness to testify. On direct exam he denied committing any violation of the traffic laws and had no knowledge of any outstanding arrest warrants. On cross-examination, defendant admitted that while the officer was following him, his vehicle swerved two or three times from the center of the road to the curb. He admitted to being under the influence of cannabis and that was the reason he swerved. The trial court granted the State's motion for directed finding. Defendant claimed that People v. Manders, 317 Ill. App. 3d 337 (2000) precluded such a stop when one is weaving within one's own lane. The motion to quash the arrest and suppress evidence was denied.
The appellate court affirmed. The court specifically overruled Manders. The court found that in the present case defendant admitted that his vehicle swerved from the center of the road toward the curb. This was erratic driving sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving under the influence. Since defendant did not meet his burden of proof, the trial court's denial of the motion was proper.
People v. Ciborowski, 2016 IL App (1st) 143352. Following a three car traffic accident, the defendant received citations for DUI for drugs, failure to reduce speed to avoid and accident, and no insurance. The arresting officer also noted the defendant's speed was over the 30 miles per hour speed limit. Defendant filed a petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension and motion to suppress evidence based on lack of probable cause. Hearings on both were held at the same time.
The arresting officer after talking to the drivers of the three cars concluded the defendant had rear ended the other cars. The defendant's vehicle had severed damage to the front. While questioning the defendant he gave conflicting answers as to where he lived. Additionally he initially said he caused the accident by striking the other cars and then said the other cars hit his car. When asked to produce his insurance card, the defendant produced his AARP card. Another observation made was that the defendant was disheveled in appearance in that his shirt was untucked and unbuttoned. Also his movements were deliberate and lethargic.
The officer did not think the defendant was under the influence of alcohol due to no odor of alcohol and there was no bloodshot or glassy eyes. After placing the defendant in the squad car, the officer noticed the eyes of defendant were dilated and he had trouble keeping his eyes open. According to the officer the defendant looked sleepy and his speech was mush-mouthed and slurred.
The defendant was asked to under go field sobriety tests. The first test was the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test where the officer looks into defendant's eyes with a flashlight. During this test, defendant was wobbling, waving, and swaying and had a hard time standing up, to the point where the officer was concerned that defendant would fall over and onto the pavement. The second test was the walk-and-turn test. Defendant could not walk heel-to-toe, could not remember directions, took 18 steps...
