People v. Cortez
837 N.E.2d 449, 361 Ill.App.3d 456, 297 Ill. Dec. 366 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The totality of the circumstances, including evidence of erratic driving, multiple physical indicia of intoxication, and a defendant's admission to consuming alcohol, is sufficient to establish probable cause for an arrest for driving under the influence.
Facts:
- On April 24, 2003, Paul Cortez lost control of his sport utility vehicle while driving down an interstate entrance ramp.
- The vehicle rolled over before coming to rest in a ditch next to the interstate.
- State Trooper Robert Patterson arrived at the scene and observed that Cortez had bloodshot eyes, a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, was swaying, and slurred his speech.
- Cortez admitted to Patterson that he had consumed "a couple beers" before the accident.
- Cortez claimed another vehicle ran him off the single-lane ramp, but Patterson observed skid marks suggesting an overcorrection and found no tire tracks in the gravel to support Cortez's story.
- Cortez complained of back and neck injuries and was transported to a hospital in an ambulance.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Cortez was charged in the circuit court of Du Page County with driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 or greater.
- Before trial, Cortez filed a motion to quash his arrest, arguing that the arresting officer lacked probable cause.
- The trial court held a hearing and denied the motion to quash.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found Cortez guilty of driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 or greater.
- Cortez, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the arresting officer have probable cause to arrest Paul Cortez for driving under the influence of alcohol, based on the totality of the circumstances observed at the scene of a single-vehicle accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice O'Malley
Yes. The arresting officer had probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances. Probable cause exists when facts known to the officer are sufficient to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe a crime has been committed. Here, Trooper Patterson observed a single-vehicle rollover accident, and Cortez exhibited multiple classic signs of intoxication: bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, an odor of alcohol, and swaying. Furthermore, Cortez admitted to drinking beer before driving. The court distinguished this case from People v. Boomer, where probable cause was lacking, by noting that Cortez exhibited additional indicia of intoxication (bloodshot eyes and slurred speech) that were absent in Boomer. These combined factors were sufficient to support a reasonable belief that Cortez had been driving under the influence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the flexible 'totality of the circumstances' standard for probable cause in DUI arrests. It clarifies that a combination of factors—erratic driving evidenced by an accident, multiple physical signs of impairment, and the suspect's own admission—creates a strong basis for probable cause. The court's distinction of precedent like People v. Boomer provides lower courts and law enforcement with a clearer benchmark, signaling that while an odor of alcohol and an accident alone might be insufficient, the addition of other key indicators like slurred speech and bloodshot eyes crosses the constitutional threshold for a valid arrest.
