 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Luedemann5/4/2005
Early on a Saturday morning in August 2002, defendant, Derek M. Luedemann, was sitting in his car in front of his girlfriend's house, waiting for her to return home. Officer Eric Pate drove by, noticing that defendant's car was running and he was smoking in the car. Officer Pate drove past defendant, parked in the middle of the street, approached defendant, and observed that defendant was intoxicated. Defendant was subsequently arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11--501(a)(2) (West 2002)), in case No. 02--DT--1233 (the DUI case). Following this arrest, defendant's car was searched. A substance containing a methylenedioxy amphetamine derivative was found in the car, leading to defendant's indictment for unlawful possession of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2002)), in case No. 02--CF--1904 (the controlled substances case). In both cases, defendant moved to quash his arrest and suppress the evidence seized (725 ILCS 5/114--12 (West 2002)), arguing that Officer Pate lacked a reasonable belief that defendant was involved in criminal activity. The trial court in the DUI case granted the motion. Based on this ruling, defendant moved to collaterally estop the State from contesting the motion to suppress in the controlled substances case. The trial court granted that motion. The State filed a certificate of impairment and timely appealed (see 188 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1)), contending that the trial court erred when it (1) granted the motion to suppress in the DUI case (appeal No. 2--03--1303) and (2) collaterally estopped the State from contesting the motion to suppress in the controlled substances case (appeal No. 2--04--0184). We disagree with the State's first contention and affirm the trial court's judgment in appeal No. 2--03--1303. However, we agree with the State's second contention and vacate the trial court's judgment in appeal No. 2--04--0184.
I. FACTS
As an initial matter, we note that defendant's driving privileges were summarily suspended when he was arrested for DUI, and he petitioned to rescind that suspension (625 ILCS 5/2--118.1(b) (West 2002)). The evidence presented at the rescission hearing was stipulated to at the DUI suppression hearing and comprised the only evidence presented at that hearing. That evidence consisted of Officer Pate's testimony and a videotape revealing what transpired during three field sobriety tests that defendant failed.
At the rescission hearing, Officer Pate testified that he was on patrol in his marked squad car on August 17, 2002, when he saw defendant sitting in a car on a residential street in Hampshire at approximately 2:40 a.m. Defendant was smoking a cigarette in the driver's seat of his car, which was legally parked. Although many other cars were parked along that street, those cars were not occupied. As Officer Pate drove closer to defendant's car, he saw defendant reach towards the floorboard of the front passenger seat. Officer Pate was approximately 20 to 30 feet away from defendant's car when he made this observation, and he stated that he could not see specifically what defendant was doing. As Officer Pate continued to drive closer to defendant's car, defendant returned to a seated position but "slumped or slouched down a little bit *, bending knees and sitting down lower in the seat." Officer Pate then drove past defendant's car and parked his squad car in the middle of the street. At that time, Officer Pate lacked any information about defendant committing a crime or about any criminal activity in the area that night.
As Officer Pate, who was in uniform, approached defendant, he shined his flashlight on defendant's car and the area around it. Defenda
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Illinois DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|