People v. Brodeur
189 Ill.App.3d 936, 545 N.E.2d 1053, 137 Ill. Dec. 292 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A police officer has probable cause to arrest a driver for driving under the influence (DUI) based on the totality of the circumstances known at the time of the arrest, including involvement in a motor vehicle accident combined with classic physical indicators of intoxication such as the strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech.
Facts:
- On February 2, 1988, Cynthia Brodeur was involved in a motor vehicle accident where her car rear-ended a tow truck.
- Responding Officer Daniel A. Gabriel found Brodeur's vehicle 60 feet into an adjacent field with extensive front-end damage.
- Brodeur was found conscious but injured, sprawled across the front seat of her car.
- Brodeur admitted to being the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle.
- Prior to arresting her, Officer Gabriel observed that Brodeur had a strong odor of alcohol on her breath, red and bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech.
- Officer Gabriel arrested Brodeur for DUI based on these on-scene observations.
Procedural Posture:
- Following her DUI arrest, Cynthia Brodeur's driver's license was summarily suspended for refusing a blood-alcohol test.
- Brodeur filed a petition in the circuit court of Du Page County to rescind the summary suspension.
- The trial court (Judge Cox) held a hearing and entered an order in favor of Brodeur, finding no reasonable grounds for the arrest.
- The State, as appellant, filed a notice of appeal from that order.
- Brodeur, the defendant, then filed a motion to quash her arrest in the separate underlying DUI criminal case.
- A different trial judge (Judge Telander) granted the motion to quash, applying collateral estoppel based on the first judge's ruling.
- The State, as appellant, filed a certificate of impairment and appealed the order granting the motion to quash.
- The appellate court granted the State's motion to consolidate the two appeals for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer have probable cause to arrest a driver for DUI when, at the scene of a rear-end collision, the officer observes that the driver has a strong odor of alcohol on her breath, red and bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Reinhard
Yes. A police officer has probable cause for a DUI arrest under these circumstances. To determine if probable cause exists, a court must evaluate whether a reasonable person, with the knowledge the officer possessed at the time of arrest, would believe an offense was committed. In this case, the combination of a rear-end collision, a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech was sufficient for a 13-year veteran officer to reasonably conclude that Brodeur was driving under the influence. The trial court's finding to the contrary was based on a mistaken belief that these observations were made after the arrest, and thus its decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Dissenting - Justice McLaren
No. The officer had only a mere suspicion, not probable cause, for the arrest. The physical signs observed—odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech—are insufficient to prove impairment, as opposed to mere consumption of alcohol. The slurred speech could reasonably be attributed to a head wound from the accident, and the other signs only confirm that alcohol was consumed, which is not a crime. The officer acted precipitously without gathering additional evidence to elevate his suspicion to the level of probable cause, and the trial courts' findings should not have been overturned.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary threshold for establishing probable cause in DUI cases, particularly at an accident scene. It affirms that a combination of circumstantial evidence (the accident) and physical indicators of intoxication can be sufficient, even in the absence of field sobriety tests or pre-arrest admissions. The ruling provides a clear precedent that the totality of these specific facts moves an officer's assessment from 'mere suspicion' to 'probable cause.' The dissent, however, highlights the ongoing legal tension in distinguishing between evidence of alcohol consumption and evidence of actual impairment, arguing for a more robust factual basis before an arrest is justified.
