People v. Adams
Decision Date | 06 February 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 4-91-0619,4-91-0619 |
Citation | 167 Ill.Dec. 323,225 Ill.App.3d 815,587 N.E.2d 592 |
Parties | , 167 Ill.Dec. 323 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy R. ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Thomas D. Denby, Denby, Meno, Bloomer & Denby, Carlinville, for defendant-appellant.
Vince Moreth, State's Atty., Carlinville, Kenneth R. Boyle, Director, State's Attys. Appellate Prosecutor, Springfield, Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director, Dale M. Wood, Staff Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant Timothy R. Adams appeals from an order of the circuit court of Macoupin County denying his petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension of his Illinois driver's license. On appeal, the only issue raised is whether the decision of the trial court was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Defendant was the only witness to testify at the hearing. However, the parties stipulated to portions of the arresting officer's report, which was read into the record as follows:
Defendant testified that when Leach approached his vehicle, the officer apologized and indicated he saw the form in the rear window of the truck. Defendant stated the officer had followed his vehicle for about a half of a mile, although he was not speeding or weaving and there was nothing illegal about his vehicle. Defendant stated this incident took place in the evening, and defendant's counsel advised the court that it occurred about midnight. Defendant stated he received no ticket other than the ticket for driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI). (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-501(a)(2).) On Leach's sworn report regarding summary suspension, the bases for the DUI arrest were stated to be "odor of alcoholic beverage on breath, slurred speech, failure of field sobriety test." The summary suspension resulted because defendant's blood-alcohol concentration was .19.
On appeal, defendant argues Leach had no reasonable, articulable suspicion or belief that a crime had been or was about to be committed such as to justify the initial stop. Defendant also argues that once determining the license-applied-for form was valid, the officer was not justified in further detaining him and subsequently arresting him for DUI. We affirm.
A proceeding to rescind a summary suspension is a civil action in which the burden of proof rests on the motorist. (People v. Orth (1988), 124 Ill.2d 326, 337-38, 125 Ill.Dec. 182, 187, 530 N.E.2d 210, 215.) The trial court's determination of whether the motorist's evidence constitutes a prima facie case for rescission will be overturned on appeal only if the finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Orth, 124 Ill.2d at 341, 125 Ill.Dec. at 189, 530 N.E.2d at 217.) "The trial court's decision will be considered to be against the manifest weight of the evidence if, after a review of the evidence, it is clearly evident that the conclusion opposite to the one reached by the trial court was the proper disposition." Rogers v. City of Jerseyville (1990), 196 Ill.App.3d 136, 142, 142 Ill.Dec. 573, 578, 552 N.E.2d 1314, 1319.
A very similar issue was raised and considered in People v. Tylkowski (1988), 171 Ill.App.3d 93, 121 Ill.Dec. 64, 524 N.E.2d 1112. In Tylkowski, the court stated:
Tylkowski, 171 Ill.App.3d at 98-99, 121 Ill.Dec. at 68, 524 N.E.2d at 1116.
Even though no probable cause exists to arrest an individual, a police officer may make an investigatory stop if the officer's decision is based on specific and articulable facts and the rational inferences therefrom which warrant an investigative intrusion. (Tylkowski, 171 Ill.App.3d at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Fields
...of such a stop rests upon the totality of the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of the stop. People v. Adams, 225 Ill.App.3d 815, 818, 167 Ill.Dec. 323, 587 N.E.2d 592 (1992). ¶ 25 The circumstances of this case establish that a continued investigation was warranted. ......
-
People v. Cummings
...making further inquiries. See Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39–40, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); but see People v. Adams, 225 Ill.App.3d 815, 819, 167 Ill.Dec. 323, 587 N.E.2d 592 (1992) (holding that, once a police officer determined that a defendant's temporary registration was......
-
People v. Bartimo
... ... 323, 685 N.E.2d at 428 ... In People v. Adams, 225 Ill.App.3d 815, 816, 167 Ill.Dec. 323, 587 N.E.2d 592, 593 (1992), an officer initiated a traffic stop of the defendant's car for not having any visible registration plates. The officer shined his spotlight on the vehicle and noticed a valid license-applied-for slip in the rear window ... ...
-
People v. Hernandez
...121, 505 N.E.2d 427 (1987), People v. Bradley, 292 Ill.App.3d 208, 226 Ill.Dec. 323, 685 N.E.2d 426 (1997), Lloyd, and People v. Adams, 225 Ill.App.3d 815, 167 Ill.Dec. 323, 587 N.E.2d 592 (1992). The trial court was bound to follow these case precedents. People v. Hope, 184 Ill.2d 39, 44, ......