People v. Nicolosi , 2019 IL App (3d) 180642 ( 2019 )

2019 IL App (3d) 180642Opinion filed September 27, 2019
_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2019
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
) Will County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) Appeal No. 3-18-0642
v. ) Circuit No. 17-DT-969
)
DAVID J. NICOLOSI, ) Honorable
) Carmen J. Goodman,
Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding.
_____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE O’BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Presiding Justice Schmidt and Justice Carter concurred in the judgment and opinion.
_____________________________________________________________________________
OPINION
¶1 The State appeals an order granting defendant, David J. Nicolosi’s, motion to quash arrest
and suppress evidence. We reverse and remand.
¶2 I. BACKGROUND
¶3 The State charged defendant with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (625
ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2016)). Defendant filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress
evidence.
¶4 At the hearing on defendant’s motion, Lockport police officer Kevin Brauch testified. On
October 23, 2016, Brauch observed a vehicle driven by defendant in the Mine Grove School
parking lot attempting a three point turn. Brauch explained, “it was more turns than that but kept
hitting the curb and having difficulty navigating itself back out the—to exit out the entrance.”
Although Brauch did not believe any traffic violations occurred, he drove his squad car into the
parking lot to check on the welfare of defendant.
¶5 When Brauch parked his squad car next to defendant’s vehicle, defendant had completed
the turnaround. The two vehicles were positioned alongside one another and defendant rolled
down his window. Brauch asked defendant if everything was “okay.” Defendant stated that he
was trying to get to his friend’s house but was having problems with his global positioning
system (GPS) navigation. Brauch then noticed that defendant’s eyes were glassy and red, his
speech was slurred, and defendant was slow or hesitant to answer Brauch’s questions. Brauch
could also smell the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from defendant’s vehicle. Brauch
asked defendant if he had been drinking alcohol, and defendant responded that he had consumed
two beers.
¶6 Brauch then reversed his squad car and blocked defendant’s vehicle from leaving the
area. Brauch activated his dash cam video recorder and recorded his interaction with defendant.
Brauch then performed field sobriety tests. First, Brauch performed an alphabet test and a finger
dexterity test while defendant was still seated in his vehicle. After these tests, Brauch performed
a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test by asking defendant to follow Brauch’s pen without
moving his head. While performing this test, Brauch noticed that defendant’s eyes lacked smooth
pursuit. Defendant also could not look at the pen for a short time then look straight ahead.
2
¶7 Next, Brauch asked defendant to exit his vehicle and again asked if defendant had
consumed alcoholic beverages. Defendant said that he had consumed a couple of beers. Brauch
then conducted another HGN test and noticed defendant moved his head during the test rather
than only following the pen with his eyes. Brauch also stated that defendant swayed from side to
side. Brauch asked defendant to perform a walk-and-turn test. Brauch demonstrated how to
perform the test. During the test, defendant failed to follow some of Brauch’s instructions.
Defendant had difficulty keeping his heel and toes together as he walked. When defendant was
asked to turn, he did an “about-face rather than the pivot steps” that Brauch had demonstrated.
Defendant also had to take an extra step to rebalance himself. On the return walk, defendant
missed several heel to toe steps by more than six inches, and appeared to walk normally at the
end rather than attempting heel to toe steps.
¶8 Brauch next asked defendant to perform the one-legged stand test. During the test,
defendant had to put his foot down to balance himself, and defendant also had to restart the
counting test when he counted out of order despite being instructed to continue counting where
defendant had left off. Defendant also stopped the test before Brauch instructed him to do so.
¶9 Following the field sobriety tests, Brauch asked defendant to perform a preliminary
breath test (PBT), which defendant declined. At that point, Brauch arrested defendant. The video
recording of the time Brauch blocked defendant’s vehicle and began performing field sobriety
tests was played for the court during Brauch’s testimony.
¶ 10 Following the evidence, the court found that Brauch was justified in initially approaching
defendant to check his welfare after observing defendant struggling to perform a turnaround. The
court found defendant’s explanation that he was lost and having trouble with his GPS navigation
to be reasonable. The court then commented on the video recording of defendant performing the
3
field sobriety tests. The court found defendant’s speech “very clear” and defendant’s balance to
be “excellent.” The court also commented that the surface of the area defendant performed the
field sobriety tests was “cracked and looked a little uneven.” The court also noted that “[Brauch]
indicated that the defendant stumbled or was swaying. I don’t see that. He did put his leg down. I
saw he had perfect balance.” The court continued,
“So I look now because the Fourth Amendment does trigger in this case
with unreasonable searches and seizures at the point he blocked his vehicle after
the defendant made a turn and he saw everything was okay. *** And we saw no
tape of any kind of this curb, this erratic driving, we see none of that, what alludes
to erratic driving. Had it been some type of erratic driving, it would seem to me
that the officer would have at least, not to mention this is a parking lot, officer had
to—which becomes an issue in and of itself, that was not raised but it is a parking
lot of a school, it was not raised.
So now we look to determine whether or not he had probable cause and
reason to believe that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. There is a
litany of factors we can look at. The smell of alcohol clearly not enough. Red and
bloodshot eyes, clearly not enough. Non-standardized tests are given often. That
is not unusual. The PBT shows consciousness of guilt. He was cooperative up
until that point. I saw that he did very well. It doesn’t seem like he was touching
heel to toe. I think the officer was credible when it came to that point but it is just
not enough here under the law.”
4
¶ 11 Ultimately, the court granted defendant’s motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence.
The court clarified that all evidence after Brauch blocked defendant’s vehicle would be
suppressed.
¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 13 On appeal, the State contends that the court erred by granting defendant’s motion to
quash arrest and suppress evidence. 1 Specifically, the State contends that the court erred in
finding that: (1) the officer lacked a reasonable articulable suspicion to detain defendant for
further questioning and field sobriety tests; and (2) the officer lacked probable cause to arrest
defendant after performing the field sobriety tests. We discuss each argument in turn.
¶ 14 A circuit court’s ruling on a motion to quash arrest usually involves assessing the
credibility of witnesses and making a determination of the facts. People v. Wright, 183 Ill. 2d 16,
20-22 (1998). A ruling in these circumstances should not be disturbed unless it was manifestly
erroneous. Id. However, a ruling should be reviewed de novo “when neither the facts nor the
credibility of the witnesses is questioned.” People v. Foskey, 136 Ill. 2d 66, 76 (1990). We
discuss the State’s arguments in turn.
¶ 15 A. Defendant’s Detention
¶ 16 At the outset, we note that the court appears to have applied the incorrect standard when
considering whether Officer Brauch lacked a reasonable articulable suspicion to detain
defendant. The court stated that Brauch lacked probable cause to block defendant’s vehicle and
administer field sobriety tests. However, in a DUI case, if an officer has a reasonable suspicion
based on specific and articulable facts that a driver is under the influence of alcohol, field
sobriety tests which “do not involve long delay or unreasonable intrusion, although searches
1
Defendant did not file a responding brief on appeal.
5
under the fourth amendment, may be justified.” State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 274,
(1986); see generally People v. Easley, 288 Ill. App. 3d 487, 491 (1997). Therefore, the
appropriate standard to apply on this issue is whether Brauch had a reasonable articulable
suspicion that defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol.
¶ 17 Applying the above standard, we find that the facts known to Brauch at the time he
blocked defendant’s vehicle gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving under
the influence. Brauch observed defendant driving his vehicle and having difficulty performing a
turnaround. Brauch testified that he observed defendant’s vehicle collide with the curb several
times during the process. When Brauch approached defendant’s vehicle, he noticed the odor of
an alcoholic beverage emanating from defendant’s vehicle. Brauch also testified that he observed
defendant’s eyes were glassy and red. Defendant also admitted to consuming alcohol. Based on
these circumstances, we find that it was proper for Brauch to detain defendant and perform field
sobriety tests. Therefore, the court erred when it suppressed the evidence of defendant’s field
sobriety testing. Our inquiry, however, does not end here.
¶ 18 B. Defendant’s Arrest
¶ 19 Next, the State argues the court erred in finding that Brauch lacked probable cause to
arrest defendant following the field sobriety tests. “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.” People v. Wear, 229 Ill. 2d 545, 563 (2008).
Such a determination must be based upon the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 564. Probable
cause must rise to a level higher than mere suspicion. E.g., People v. Boomer, 325 Ill. App. 3d
206, 209 (2001). It must also rise to a level higher than “reasonable, articulable suspicion,” the
6
lesser standard required to justify an investigatory stop, rather than a full arrest. E.g., Illinois v.
Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000).
¶ 20 Based on the totality of the circumstances, we find that the circuit court erred when it
held that Brauch lacked probable cause to arrest defendant. In making its determination, the court
correctly noted that defendant smelled of an alcoholic beverage, had red and glassy eyes, and
refused to perform a PBT. The court proceeded to consider these factors independently when it
determined that Brauch lacked probable cause. While it may be true that any one of these factors
taken in isolation may be insufficient to justify defendant’s arrest, when viewed cumulatively
along with the other observations of the officer do support a finding of probable cause. Although,
the court found that defendant performed well on the field sobriety tests, the dash cam recording
of the tests shows that defendant repeatedly failed to follow Brauch’s instructions. First, while
performing the alphabet test, defendant had to repeat the test after his failed first attempt. During
the second attempt, defendant jumbled several letters. Brauch had defendant perform the finger
dexterity test twice. The first attempt defendant asked for instruction on how to perform the test.
During the second attempt, defendant failed to follow instructions and jumbled the numbers as
he was counting down from four.
¶ 21 The recording also shows that defendant failed to follow instruction and complete the
walk-and-turn and one-legged stand tests. As to the walk-and-turn test, defendant failed to follow
the instruction to take each step heel to toe. During the turn portion, defendant did an about face
turn rather than a pivot step that Brauch had instructed him to perform. When defendant walked
back to his starting position, he failed to make heel to toe steps as instructed. As to the one-
legged stand test, defendant had to place his foot down on the first attempt to regain his balance.
When defendant attempted to try the test again, he restarted his count instead of following
7
Brauch’s instruction to continue his count from where he left off on the first attempt. Defendant
then stopped the test before Brauch instructed him to do so. Finally, defendant refused to
perform a PBT, showing his consciousness of guilt.
¶ 22 Regarding the portions of the tests that were not clearly shown in the video, Brauch
testified that while he performed the HGN test defendant’s eyes lacked smooth pursuit.
Defendant was also reminded to follow the pen with his eyes, but Brauch noticed that defendant
could not follow the pen without stopping and looking straight ahead. When Brauch performed
the HGN test outside defendant’s vehicle, defendant moved his head to follow the pen rather
than using only his eyes as instructed.
¶ 23 Considering the above, along with Brauch’s initial observation of defendant repeatedly
colliding with the curb while maneuvering his vehicle, the odor of an alcoholic beverage
emanating from defendant, defendant’s red and glassy eyes, and defendant’s admission to
drinking alcohol, we conclude that the officer had probable cause to place defendant under arrest
for DUI. Therefore, we hold that the circuit court erred when it granted defendant’s motion to
quash arrest and suppress evidence.
¶ 24 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 25 The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is reversed and remanded.
¶ 26 Reversed and remanded.
8