§ 4.3 Arrest

• Library: Illinois DUI and Traffic-Related Decisions (2016 Ed.)

§ 4.3 Arrest

§ 4.3-1 Reasonable Grounds

§ 4.3-1(a) Not Shown

People v. Marks, 139 Ill. App. 3d 388, 487 N.E.2d 636, 93 Ill. Dec. 811 (3d Dist. 1986). No reasonable grounds were found where the arresting officer observed defendant driving and officer believed defendant's license to be suspended. While waiting for verification of the status of defendant's license, the officer saw defendant drive over the center line, stop at a red light, and then make a right turn from the left-hand lane. The officer further observed the defendant drive in the center and on the left-hand side of a two-lane street without lane markings. After receiving verification that defendant's license was not suspended, the officer stopped defendant and arrested him for DUI. The arresting officer never testified as to physical observation of defendant's behavior or appearance, and the appellate court found no probable cause for an arrest on DUI.

People v. Collins, 154 Ill. App. 3d 149, 506 N.E.2d 963, 107 Ill. Dec. 72 (3d Dist. 1987). Trial court's finding of no probable cause for stop of auto upheld.

People v. Albright, 251 Ill. App. 3d 341, 622 N.E.2d 60, 190 Ill. Dec. 650 (3d Dist. 1993). The officer stopped defendant's car for improper lane usage after seeing defendant's vehicle weave within his lane and crossing the solid white line on the right side of the lane. Eventual observations made by the officer supported his decision to arrest defendant for DUI.

At a rescission hearing the trial court found insufficient facts to support a charge of improper lane usage but held the stop was proper because the officer had grounds for a reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol. The appellate court affirmed, finding the stop was justified.

People v. Hood, 265 Ill. App. 3d 232, 638 N.E.2d 264, 202 Ill. Dec. 618 (4th Dist. 1994). Defendant was stopped while riding his motorcycle. The arresting officer requested defendant to submit to field sobriety tests which defendant could not successfully complete. Defendant refused to take a breath test. At a rescission hearing the officer stated the cycle was stopped for violating the speed limit, having a dysfunctional brake light, and lacking a muffler. Defendant denied violating the speed limit and denied that the brake light was not functioning. The trial court chose to believe the officer. The appellate court found the trial court's ruling concerning the validity of the stop was proper.

With respect to whether probable cause existed to believe defendant had committed the offense of DUI, evidence testified to by the arresting officer indicated defendant smelled of alcohol and slurred his speech. He had turned his ignition key to the wrong position so as to make his turn signal non-functional, and he failed two field sobriety tests. While defendant disputed the officer's testimony, the trial...