People v. Tibbetts
Decision Date | 17 August 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 5-02-0822.,5-02-0822. |
Citation | 287 Ill.Dec. 6,351 Ill. App.3d 921,815 N.E.2d 409 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen J. TIBBETTS. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Edward J. Kionka, Belleville; Roscoe D. Cunningham, Cunningham & Neal, Lawrenceville, for Appellant.
Terry Kaid, Wabash County State's Attorney, Mt. Carmel; Norbert J. Goetten, Director, Stephen E. Norris, Deputy Director, Patrick D. Daly, Staff Attorney, Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Mt. Vernon, for Appellee.
The defendant, Stephen Tibbetts, was charged with driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (DUI) pursuant to section 11-501(d)(1) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-501(d)(1) (West 2000)) and with the unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia and cannabis (720 ILCS 600/3.5 (West 2000); 720 ILCS 550/4(a) (West 2000)). As a third-time DUI offender, Tibbetts' driver's license was suspended in accordance with section 11-501.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-501.1 (West 2000)) for a minimum of three years. In his amended petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension of his driver's license, Tibbetts claims that his arrest was improper, that the officer had no reasonable grounds to believe he was driving under the influence, and that he was not given proper warnings. He further claims that he did not refuse to submit to chemical testing because he agreed to a breathalyzer test and was physically and medically unable to submit to a blood test. After two hearings, Tibbetts rested his case and the State moved for a judgment under section 2-1110 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1110 (West 2002)). The trial court found that Tibbetts had failed to establish a prima facie case, and the court dismissed his amended petition. Tibbetts appeals.
Tibbetts and the arresting officer, Deputy Keeling, testified in Tibbetts' case in chief at the hearings before the trial court. A videotape of the booking process was viewed by all the parties at the beginning of the first hearing. This video was not made a part of the record on appeal, and testimony at the hearings regarding the content of the video is confusing at best. The following relevant evidence was adduced. On the day of his arrest, Tibbetts, a carpenter, was driving from Crossville to Lawrenceville and needed to use the restroom. He pulled off the road and relieved himself. He backed his van into a ditch as he attempted to turn around. Tibbetts admitted that he had consumed three beers during the day. A cold open can of beer was found in the van when Deputy Keeling arrived, as was cannabis and cannabis paraphernalia. A number of empty cans were found on the floor of the van. Keeling smelled alcohol on Tibbetts' breath and observed that his speech was slurred and his eyes were bloodshot. He administered field sobriety tests consisting of the one-leg stand and the eye nystagmus test followed by a portable breathalyzer test (PBT).
Keeling testified that it was obvious to him from the beginning of their encounter that Tibbetts had been drinking. Tibbetts also did not do well on the field sobriety tests. The results of the PBT indicated that Tibbetts' blood-alcohol level exceeded.08. Keeling testified that they did not discuss types of testing at the scene and that he did not tell Tibbetts on the drive to the jail that he would administer a breathalyzer test upon their arrival. Keeling testified that deputies are given the discretion to administer whatever test they choose but that it is his personal policy to ask for a blood test if he finds drugs in the vehicle and to ask for a breathalyzer test if only alcohol use is suspected. Keeling decided to ask for a blood test when he found cannabis in Tibbetts' van. According to Keeling, Tibbetts never told him that he was afraid of blood tests. Keeling administered warnings to Tibbetts and informed him of his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)), but he testified that he did not tell Tibbetts that he could consult with an attorney regarding the blood test.
Tibbetts testified that Keeling told him in the patrol car en route to the jail that he would give him a breathalyzer test at the jail and did offer him a breathalyzer test upon their arrival. However, one was never administered. He also testified that after they reached the jail, Keeling asked him to submit to a blood test, which he refused because he has "had a problem with blood tests" for years. Tibbetts claimed that when he was 12 or 13 years old, he saw a dead man in a park with a needle hanging out of his arm; he testified that he did not realize the extent of the impact of this experience until 1975, when he was required to donate blood as part of his wife's hospitalization. He testified that he got very excited, passed out, and was unconscious for about 10 minutes. He testified that the combination of having a needle in his arm and the drawing of blood causes him fear and trauma and that he had explained his fear to Keeling.
It is not clear from the record to what extent the video reflected Tibbetts informing Keeling of his fear, if at all. Further, the record does not clearly reflect whether Tibbetts initially consented to a blood test. However, it appears through testimony about the video from Tibbetts and Keeling that Tibbetts initially consented to a blood test and then changed his mind. Tibbetts did not put on any medical testimony or offer any other corroborating witnesses regarding his fear of blood tests. He also testified that he had not obtained any treatment or counseling for his fear. There was no testimony in the record that indicated that it was physically or psychologically impossible for Tibbetts to give blood.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court noted the absence in the record of evidence supporting Tibbetts' statutory allegations and held that he failed to make a prima facie case regarding those specific paragraphs. The trial judge further found that it was uncontroverted that Keeling had the authority and discretion to request any test he wanted and that once Keeling found cannabis in the car, it was reasonable for him to suspect drug use and to therefore request a blood test. The trial court further noted the absence of any medical testimony showing that it was physically or psychologically impossible for Tibbetts to take a blood test, and the court recognized that the only evidence of such an impairment was Tibbetts' own self-serving statement that he had been traumatized as a young man and was afraid of needles and blood. The trial court found that he clearly and unequivocally refused the blood test. Thus, the trial court held that Tibbetts failed to make a prima facie case for rescission. A written order was subsequently entered dismissing Tibbetts' amended petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension of his license.
Tibbetts advances three arguments on appeal. He contends (1) that the trial court erred in finding that he failed to establish a prima facie case for rescission, (2) that the officer's request for a blood test was unreasonable and violated Tibbetts' constitutional rights, and (3) that section 11-501.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-501.1 (West 2000)) is unconstitutionally vague. We disagree with Tibbetts on all three points and affirm the trial court's order dismissing his amended petition.
Tibbetts and the State vigorously disagree on the standard of review we must apply, as well as the standard the trial court was required to apply in ruling on the State's motion for a judgment. These matters merit our discussion before we address Tibbetts' points on appeal. We recognize that there is some authority for de novo review on appeals from rulings on motions made under section 2-1110 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1110 (West 2002)). Had the trial court ruled as a matter of law that Tibbetts failed to make a prima facie case, de novo review would have been appropriate. However, the trial court in this case did not rule as a matter of law; rather, the judge considered the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and quality of the conflicting evidence presented by Tibbetts. Therefore, we find that a more deferential standard is appropriate in this case. We will not reverse a trial court's ruling on a motion for a judgment in a nonjury case made under section 2-1110 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Wise, 282 Ill.App.3d 642, 647, 218 Ill.Dec. 397, 669 N.E.2d 128, 132 (1996); People v. Orth, 124 Ill.2d 326, 341, 125 Ill.Dec. 182, 530 N.E.2d 210, 217 (1988); Kokinis v. Kotrich, 81 Ill.2d 151, 154, 40 Ill.Dec. 812, 407 N.E.2d 43, 45 (1980). For a ruling to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, it must appear that a conclusion opposite to that reached by the trial court is clearly evident. People v. Barwig, 334 Ill.App.3d 738, 743, 268 Ill.Dec. 364, 778 N.E.2d 350, 355 (2002).
We further find that the trial court applied the correct standard to the State's motion for a judgment before dismissing Tibbetts' amended petition. Tibbetts argues that the trial court erred in finding that he failed to make a prima facie case because he presented some evidence to establish that he did not refuse to submit to a blood test. According to Tibbetts, the trial court was required to evaluate the State's motion in this case like a motion for a directed verdict in a jury trial, which requires the trial court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. The State argues that the trial court did not err when it weighed the conflicting evidence and the credibility of Tibbetts' witnesses. The issue before u...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Relwani
...judicial rescission of a suspension, and the State is placed in the position of a civil defendant." People v. Tibbetts , 351 Ill. App. 3d 921, 926, 287 Ill.Dec. 6, 815 N.E.2d 409 (2004). "[T]he motorist initially bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case by putting on some evidenc......
-
People v. Davis
...inferences from the testimony, and consider the weight and quality of the evidence. Id. (citing People v. Tibbetts, 351 Ill.App.3d 921, 927–28, 287 Ill.Dec. 6, 815 N.E.2d 409 (2004)). ¶ 48 When determining whether reasonable grounds existed for an arrest, courts employ the probable cause an......
-
People v. Darguzis
..." People v. Araiza , 2020 IL App (3d) 170735, ¶ 15, 445 Ill.Dec. 141, 166 N.E.3d 170 (quoting People v. Tibbetts , 351 Ill. App. 3d 921, 926, 287 Ill.Dec. 6, 815 N.E.2d 409 (2004) ). In a civil proceeding, "[a] party may serve on any other party a written request for the admission by the la......
-
People v. Biagi
...physical inability to complete a test constitutes a refusal is made on a case-by-case basis." People v. Tibbetts , 351 Ill.App.3d 921, 929, 287 Ill.Dec. 6, 815 N.E.2d 409 (2004). However, a defendant's bare claim that he is unable to urinate is insufficient evidence to show that he did not ......
-
C Other Seizures of Evidence
...due to involvement in criminal activity after they witnessed the cash and green leafy material on the table). People v. Tibbetts, 351 Ill. App. 3d 921, 815 N.E.2d 409 (5th Dist. 2004) (HELD: Where an officer found cannabis and related paraphernalia, as well as open beer containers in the de......
-
§ 4.7 Court Action
...of defendant's issue concerning whether his physical condition precluded him from supplying a sufficient sample. People v. Tibbetts, 351 Ill. App. 3d 921, 815 N.E.2d 409, 287 Ill. Dec. 6 (5th Dist. 2004). Defendant was arrested for DUI and since this was his third offense for DUI, his licen......
-
Table of Cases
...N.E.2d 1024 (2d Dist. 1997)....................................................................................71 People v. Tibbetts, 351 Ill. App. 3d 921, 815 N.E.2d 409 (5th Dist. 2004)..................................................................................... 141 People v. Till......