People v. Armer

• Decision Date: 27 October 2014
• Docket Number: No. 5–13–0342.,5–13–0342.
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Jake P. ARMER, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

20 N.E.3d 521

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
Jake P. ARMER, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 5–13–0342.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

Oct. 27, 2014.

20 N.E.3d 522

Heath Hooks, State's Attorney, Washington County Courthouse, Nashville, IL, Patrick Delfino, Director, Stephen E. Norris, Deputy Director, Patrick D. Daly, Staff Attorney, Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Fifth District Office, Mt. Vernon, IL, for Appellant.

Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Ellen J. Curry, Ellen J. Curry, Deputy Defender, Lawrence J. O'Neill, Assistant Appellate Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Fifth Judicial District, Mt. Vernon, IL, for Appellee.

OPINION

Justice CATES delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The defendant, Jake P. Armer, was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of sections 11–501(a)(1) and (2) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Code) (625 ILCS 5/11–501(a)(1), (2) (West 2012)). He filed a motion to suppress the results of a blood-alcohol analysis on grounds that his blood was drawn without his consent, without a warrant, and in the absence of exigent circumstances which would excuse the arresting officer from obtaining a search warrant. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the arresting officer was not faced with exigent circumstances that would justify acting without a warrant, and it granted the defendant's motion to suppress. The State filed a certificate of impairment and appealed. On appeal, the State claims that the trial court erred in finding that there was no exigency and in granting the defendant's motion to suppress, where the arresting officer could have reasonably believed that the time delay attendant to processing the motor vehicle accident and transporting the defendant to a hospital would lead to the destruction of evidence, namely the dissipation of alcohol from the defendant's blood. We affirm.

¶ 2 The appeal was filed pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 2013), and challenges the circuit court's order suppressing the results of a blood-alcohol analysis in a DUI case. Joshua Cross, a Washington County sheriff's deputy, was called by the defendant and was the only witness to testify at the

20 N.E.3d 523

suppression hearing. A summary of his testimony follows.

¶ 3 Deputy Cross testified that he was dispatched to a rollover accident at 11:25 p.m. on June 30, 2012. He arrived at the scene at 11:35 p.m., and another officer, Corporal Bauer, pulled up moments later. Upon arrival, Deputy Cross observed a damaged vehicle. It had rolled over and was in a ditch. He also observed a man, later identified as the defendant, who was bloody, but walking around. An ambulance responded to the scene and transported the defendant to a hospital for evaluation. Deputy Cross followed the ambulance to the hospital, while Corporal Bauer remained at the scene. The ambulance departed the scene at 12:08 a.m. on July 1, 2012, and arrived at the hospital at 12:30 a.m. Another officer arrived at the hospital at 12:44 a.m., and remained there until 1:10 a.m.

¶ 4 While at the hospital, Deputy Cross charged the defendant with driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of section 11–501(a)(2) of the Code. The citation was issued at 12:45 a.m. Deputy Cross then read the “Warning to Motorist” to the defendant. Deputy Cross testified that the defendant fell asleep as the warning was being read to him. He attempted to wake the defendant, but was unable to rouse him. After reading the warning to the sleeping defendant, Deputy Cross requested the hospital staff to draw the defendant's blood with a DUI kit. The blood draw was completed at 1:15 a.m., and it was delivered to the police laboratory for analysis. The results revealed a blood-alcohol concentration of .159.

¶ 5 Upon receiving the results of the blood draw, Deputy Cross issued a second citation, charging the defendant with driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of section 11–501(a)(1) of the Code. Deputy Cross prepared a sworn report which advised the defendant that his driving privileges would be revoked for a minimum of 12 months based on the results of the blood-alcohol analysis. In the report, Deputy Cross stated that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was driving under the influence. He noted that the defendant was involved in a traffic crash, his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, there was an odor of an alcoholic beverage, his speech was slurred, and...