People v. Claudio

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 1st District Appellate » 2007 » People v. Claudio

People v. Claudio

State: Illinois

Court: 1st District Appellate

Docket No: 1-05-3336 Rel

Case Date: 03/15/2007

Preview:FOURTH DIVISION FILED: March 15, 2007

No. 1-05-3336

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM CLAUDIO, Defendant-Appellee.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. No. TA 896 708 Honorable Rhoda D. Sweeney, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE MURPHY delivered the opinion of the court: The State of Illinois appeals from an order entered by the circuit court of Cook County granting defendant William Claudio's motion to suppress his breath test results. On appeal, the State contends that the test results were admissible because the police officer's failure to record defendant's test in the log book was merely a procedural and ministerial omission. On February 15, 2003, defendant was stopped by Chicago police for failing to obey a stop sign. He was then charged with several traffic violations, including the illegal transportation of alcohol and two counts of driving under the influence. Defendant subsequently filed a motion in limine to suppress the results of his alleged breath test. Therein, defendant argued that, according to the rules of the Illinois State Police, the officer conducting the breath test was required to enter defendant's name and test information in the log book that is kept with the breath test machine. Defendant argued that because the officer failed to enter the required information into the log book, the State was barred from introducing the results of his alleged breath test into evidence. At a hearing on the motion, defendant argued that in People v. Orth, 124 Ill. 2d 326 (1988), the Illinois Supreme Court listed five elements that must be met to lay a proper

1-05-3336 foundation for admitting the results of a breath test. The first element requires that the test was performed in accordance with the uniform standards adopted by the Illinois State Police. Defendant argued that the language in the police standards mandated that the subject test records "must be maintained" in a log book, unless an exception applied that was not relevant in this case. The State acknowledged that the log book did not contain an entry for defendant's breath test, but argued that the test results were still admissible. The State relied on the holding in People v. Stein, 212 Ill. App. 3d 164 (1991), where the court found that the failure to enter the machine's accuracy test records into the log book was merely procedural or administrative and did not have a substantial effect on the test itself; therefore, the results of the defendant's breath test were admissible. The State also argued that the police officer's failure to record defendant's test in the log book went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. In addition, the State argued that there was other evidence that indicated the date and time of defendant's breath test in the form of a paper ticket that was produced by the breath test machine at the time of defendant's test. The trial court reviewed the case law, found that the issue raised had never been previously addressed, and granted defendant's motion to bar entry of the breath test results. The court remarked that according to the log book, defendant was a "nonentity." It then found that defendant would be at a disadvantage of not knowing the exact time of his test and having that safeguard in place. The court further stated that the test records and log books existed for a reason, and that allowing the test results to be admitted where they were not entered in the log book would deprive defendant of a fair trial. The State subsequently filed a certificate of impairment and a timely notice of appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) (210 Ill.2d R. 604(a)(1)). On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred when it suppressed defendant's breath test results, because the administering officer's failure to record those results in the -2-

1-05-3336 machine's log book was merely a procedural and ministerial omission that was not fatal to the admissibility of the evidence. The State further argues that the trial court's reasoning that defendant was disadvantaged by the omission was flawed because the exact date and time of the test were recorded on the breath ticket that was given to defendant. The State maintains that the police officer's failure to record the test in the log book goes only to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility, and that all of the information that should have been recorded in the log could have been established by other means, such as the test result ticket and the officer's testimony. In general, a trial court's decision to grant a motion in limine will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion; however, where, as here, the issue on appeal involves only a question of law, our review is de novo. People v. Larsen, 323 Ill. App. 3d 1022, 1026 (2001). Pursuant to section 11-501.2 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (the Code) (625 ILCS 5/11-501.2 (West 2002)), the results of defendant's breath test will be considered valid only where such test was performed in accordance with the standards promulgated by the Department of State Police. Stein, 212 Ill. App. 3d at 166. Our supreme court has held that in order to admit the results of a breath test into evidence, the State must lay a foundation consisting of the following five factors: (1) evidence that the test was performed in accordance with the uniform standard adopted by the Illinois Department of State Police;* (2) evidence that the operator conducting the test was certified by the Department of State Police; (3) evidence that the breath test machine used for the test was a model approved by the Department of State Police, was working properly, and was tested regularly for accuracy; (4) evidence that defendant was observed for 20 minutes prior to the test, and during that time, he did not smoke, drink or regurgitate; and (5) evidence that the results on

Pursuant to Public Act 91-828 (Pub. Act 91-828,

Download People v. Claudio.pdf