Digitally signed by
Reporter of
Decisions
Reason: I attest to
Illinois Official Reports the accuracy and
integrity of this
document
Appellate Court Date: 2019.08.07
14:24:10 -05'00'
People v. Williams, 2018 IL App (2d) 160683
Appellate Court THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Caption DAVID R. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
District & No. Second District
Docket No. 2-16-0683
Filed October 23, 2018
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County, Nos. 13-DT-892, 13-
Review CM-3596, 13-TR-48988; the Hon. Robert J. Morrow, Judge,
presiding.
Judgment Affirmed.
Counsel on James E. Chadd, Thomas A. Lilien, and Timothy J. Storm, of State
Appeal Appellate Defender’s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.
Joseph H. McMahon, State’s Attorney, of St. Charles (Patrick Delfino,
David J. Robinson, and Sally A. Swiss, of State’s Attorneys Appellate
Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.
Panel JUSTICE BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.
Presiding Justice Hudson and Justice Burke concurred in the judgment
and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Kane County, defendant, David R. Williams,
was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2)
(West 2012)), possession of drug paraphernalia (720 ILCS 600/3.5(a) (West 2012)), and
disobeying a traffic control device (625 ILCS 5/11-305(a) (West 2012)). Defendant argues on
appeal that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to quash his arrest and suppress
evidence discovered during a search incident to his arrest. Defendant further argues that the
State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of DUI. We affirm.
¶2 I. BACKGROUND
¶3 At the hearing on defendant’s motion to quash and suppress, Elgin police officer Thomas
Michael testified that, on August 30, 2013, at 12:57 a.m., he was driving west on Lillian Street,
approaching McLean Boulevard. Michael was stopped at a red light behind a green Cavalier.
The left-turn arrow activated, at which point the Cavalier proceeded straight through the
intersection. Michael testified that the Cavalier lunged into the intersection, paused, and then
continued through into the parking lot for the Elgin Mall. Michael conducted a traffic stop.
Michael identified defendant as the Cavalier’s driver. Defendant’s speech was “kind of
mumbled, slow and slurred,” and Michael smelled an alcoholic beverage “coming from
[defendant’s] person.” Defendant advised Michael that he had come from a bar—JB’s—
located on the northeast corner of Lillian and McLean. Defendant told Michael that he had
consumed four beers. Suspecting that defendant might be impaired, Michael contacted Elgin
police officer Bernhard Bajak and requested that Bajak conduct an investigation. Bajak arrived
a few minutes later and ultimately arrested defendant. Michael searched the Cavalier and
discovered what appeared to be cannabis pipes.
¶4 Bajak testified that he spoke with defendant and asked him to step out of the vehicle.
Defendant emerged from the vehicle without stumbling or falling, but he swayed as he stood
outside the vehicle. Bajak smelled the odor of alcohol on defendant. When asked whether
defendant’s eyes were “red, bloodshot, glassy, watery,” Bajak answered “yes.” Bajak testified
that he asked defendant to perform field sobriety tests, but that defendant refused. Defendant
claimed that a football injury prevented him from performing the tests. He also claimed that
he could not walk a straight line sober. Michael’s and Bajak’s squad cars were equipped with
video cameras. Recordings of their encounters with defendant were entered into evidence and
played at the suppression hearing.
¶5 Defendant testified that he was employed “do[ing] HVAC for new construction housing.”
The day before his arrest, he did not fall asleep until 1:30 to 2 a.m., and he woke up at around
4 a.m. to go to work. Defendant worked from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., and he was “ridiculously” tired.
Defendant testified that he owned a green 2002 Cavalier. When he bought the Cavalier, it had
a faulty water pump. While he was replacing the water pump, the engine fell off of a jack stand.
-2-
Thereafter, the Cavalier did not idle properly. When the vehicle was idling, defendant would
have to shift into neutral and rev the engine. Otherwise, the engine would die. Defendant
testified that, when he drove through the intersection of Lillian and McLean, he initially
mistook the green arrow for a green light. He proceeded through the intersection because he
was concerned that his engine would die while he was in the middle of it.
¶6 Michael, Bajak, and defendant were the only witnesses at trial. Michael’s and Bajak’s trial
testimony about the events leading to defendant’s arrest was similar to their testimony at the
suppression hearing. However, Michael also testified that defendant’s vehicle did not weave
as it proceeded through the intersection, that defendant used his turn signal when he turned
into the parking lot, and that defendant parked with his vehicle properly positioned in a parking
space.
¶7 Bajak and Michael testified about events that occurred after defendant was arrested. Bajak
testified that Michael conducted an inventory search of the Cavalier. Michael found two
objects that appeared to be pipes for smoking cannabis. Bajak testified that it was his opinion
that a substance found inside the pipes was cannabis. Michael confirmed that he searched the
vehicle and discovered what appeared to be cannabis pipes. Bajak gave defendant the
opportunity to take a breath test. Defendant refused.
¶8 Defendant testified that he worked in the HVAC field, installing ductwork and heating and
air conditioning units in homes under construction. On August 29, 2013, defendant woke up
at 3:30 or 4 a.m. He started work at 7 a.m. at a job site in St. Charles. Defendant had nothing
to eat prior to beginning work. He took a lunch break at 11 a.m. While working, he drank
Gatorade or coffee. He did not drink any alcohol. Defendant worked until 3 to 3:30 p.m., and
it was nearly 5 p.m. when he got home. Defendant took a shower, ate a French bread pizza,
and drove to the Elgin Lanes bowling alley for his bowling league. The drive took about 45
minutes, and he arrived at about 6:30 p.m. Defendant had two beers while bowling. He had the
first beer with food at about 6:45 p.m. He had the second beer at about 8:30 p.m. Defendant
bowled until about 10:30 p.m. and was “pretty tired” when he was done. He and a coworker
then went to JB’s. He had a beer at about 11 p.m. and another one about an hour to an hour
and a half later. Defendant left JB’s at about 1 a.m. He was exhausted, but was not under the
influence of alcohol.
¶9 Defendant testified about the problem idling his vehicle’s engine. When he left JB’s, he
made a right turn onto Lillian Street and stopped at a red light. He was planning to drive into
the Elgin Mall to buy a burrito before going home. He revved the engine to keep it from dying.
When the left-turn arrow came on, defendant shifted into drive. According to defendant, “that
was when the car lurched a little bit into the intersection and started to spit, sputter and die.”
He put his foot on the gas pedal so that he would not get stuck in the middle of the intersection.
Defendant had no trouble retrieving his wallet and “the necessary documentation” when
Michael stopped him. He did not stumble or fall when getting out of his car. Defendant testified
that while a sophomore in high school he suffered a football injury. His doctor told him that
he would likely have trouble standing still and walking normally.
¶ 10 The jury found defendant guilty of the three charged offenses. Defendant filed a motion
for a new trial. The trial court denied the motion and sentenced defendant to an 18-month term
of conditional discharge and 240 hours of community service. This appeal followed.
-3-
¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 12 We first consider whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to quash his
arrest and suppress evidence. Upon review of a ruling on a motion to quash and suppress, the
trial court’s findings of fact are entitled to great deference, and we will reverse those findings
only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Jarvis, 2016 IL App (2d)
141231, ¶ 17. The trial court’s legal conclusion as to whether the evidence must be suppressed
is subject to de novo review. Id.
¶ 13 Defendant contends that there was no probable cause to arrest him for DUI. “Probable
cause to arrest exists when the totality of the facts known to the officer at the time of the arrest
are sufficient to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that the arrestee has committed a
crime.” People v. Meo, 2018 IL App (2d) 170135, ¶ 25. Defendant was charged with DUI
under section 11-501(a)(2) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West
2012)), which provides that a person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle
while under the influence of alcohol. A person is under the influence of alcohol when he or she
is “ ‘less able, either mentally or physically, or both, to exercise clear judgment, and with
steady hands and nerves operate an automobile with safety to himself and to the public.’ ”
People v. Bostelman, 325 Ill. App. 3d 22, 34 (2001) (quoting People v. Seefeldt, 112 Ill. App.
3d 106, 108 (1983)).
¶ 14 In People v. Wingren, 167 Ill. App. 3d 313, 320 (1988), this court observed that
“[p]robable cause to arrest a motorist for DUI has been commonly established by the
testimony of the arresting officer, in spite of the defendant’s contradictory testimony,
that the motorist had about him or her the odor or strong odor of alcohol, had slurred
speech or had red and glassy eyes.”
We added that,
“[g]enerally, these observations are supplemented by other observations apparent to the
officer or inferred from his observations such as speeding, weaving, erratic driving,
driving on the wrong side of the road, being stuck in a ditch [citation] or, as in the case
at bar, being in a vehicle which is stuck in the mud.” Id. at 321.
In arguing that probable cause was absent here, defendant relies, in part, on People v. Motzko,
2017 IL App (3d) 160154, ¶ 23, where the court upheld the trial court’s conclusion that there
was no probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI. The Motzko court cited People v. Day,
2016 IL App (3d) 150852, ¶¶ 23, 37-38, for the proposition that, absent further corroboration,
the odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech do not give rise to probable cause that
the defendant has committed DUI. 1
¶ 15 Defendant’s reliance on Motzko is misplaced. Here, the trial court’s determination that
there was probable cause to arrest defendant for DUI was not based solely on the odor of
alcohol, defendant’s slurred speech, and his bloodshot eyes. In addition, defendant improperly
proceeded straight through the intersection when the green left-turn arrow came on. Defendant
notes that he had no apparent difficulty maneuvering his vehicle. However, even a conviction
1
Actually, the Day court did not mention slurred speech in connection with the other two factors
(the odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes). In Day, there was conflicting testimony about whether the
defendant’s speech was slurred. The Day court inferred that the trial court resolved the conflict in the
defendant’s favor. Thus, the Day court had no occasion to consider whether probable cause would have
existed had the defendant’s speech been slurred.
-4-
of DUI does not require proof that the defendant “was completely incapacitated by alcohol.”
People v. Tatera, 2018 IL App (2d) 160207, ¶ 29. The prosecution need prove only that the
defendant “was impaired by alcohol *** to the extent that it rendered him incapable of driving
safely.” Id. Driving through a red light was evidence that defendant lacked the mental clarity
to operate his vehicle safely.
¶ 16 Defendant also contends that his “one instance of ‘poor driving’ was fully explained by the
condition of his vehicle.” However, other than defendant’s self-serving statements, Michael
and Bajak had no reason to believe that defendant’s vehicle was not in good working order. As
a court from another jurisdiction has observed, “[w]hile [a] defendant may offer innocent
explanations for his behavior, that does not prevent the police from acting on their well-
founded conclusions.” People v. Daye, 598 N.Y.S.2d 493, 494 (App. Div. 1993). After all, the
assessment of probable cause is based on the totality of the facts, and a reasonably prudent
person would be aware of a defendant’s incentive to fabricate an innocent explanation in order
to avoid arrest and prosecution.
¶ 17 Michael and Bajak also observed defendant swaying. That observation is a factor
supporting the trial court’s conclusion that there was probable cause to arrest defendant for
DUI. People v. Anderson, 2013 IL App (2d) 121346, ¶ 25. Furthermore, defendant’s refusal to
perform field sobriety tests was probative of impairment. See Tatera, 2018 IL App (2d)
160207, ¶ 28 (listing defendant’s refusal to perform any field sobriety tests among factors
contributing to conclusion that evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant’s DUI conviction).
Although defendant offered an excuse—a football injury—for his refusal to perform tests, we
are persuaded that, as in Daye, the excuse did not negate probable cause.
¶ 18 We therefore conclude that there was probable cause to arrest defendant for DUI. That
conclusion disposes of defendant’s argument that the evidence seized during the search of his
vehicle should have been suppressed. Under certain circumstances, police may conduct a
vehicle search incident to the arrest of a recent occupant. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 351
(2009). Such a search is permissible “only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the
passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle
contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” Id. Defendant does not argue that the passenger
compartment of his vehicle was beyond his reach. Nor does he argue that it was unreasonable
to believe that the vehicle contained evidence of the offense for which he was arrested.
Accordingly, we express no opinion on those issues. Defendant’s challenge to the search is
based entirely on the proposition that there was no probable cause to arrest him for DUI.
Having concluded that defendant’s arrest was supported by probable cause, we reject his
challenge to the search of his vehicle.
¶ 19 We next consider whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was
guilty of DUI. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a
criminal conviction, “ ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Collins,
106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). The trier
of fact is responsible for resolving conflicts in the testimony, weighing the evidence, and
determining what inferences to draw, and a reviewing court ordinarily will not substitute its
judgment on these matters for that of the trier of fact. People v. Cooper, 194 Ill. 2d 419, 431
(2000). “A criminal conviction will not be set aside unless the evidence is so improbable or
-5-
unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” Collins, 106 Ill. 2d
at 261.
¶ 20 As defendant acknowledges, a DUI conviction can be sustained on the basis of the
testimony of a single police officer, if that testimony is deemed credible. See, e.g., People v.
Janik, 127 Ill. 2d 390, 402 (1989). Defendant contends, however, that even in such cases the
testimony “is usually corroborated by additional evidence.” (Emphasis added.) That may be
so, but it does not follow that such corroboration is always necessary. In any event, two officers
testified at trial, and their testimony was partly corroborated by video recordings from their
squad car cameras.
¶ 21 Defendant argues that the indicia of impairment can be explained by defendant’s testimony
that he was exhausted after a long workday and his evening activities. However, whether to
credit that testimony, and what weight to give it, was for the jury to decide. This case is
distinguishable from the cases cited by defendant—People v. Thomas, 34 Ill. App. 3d 578
(1975), People v. Schultz, 10 Ill. App. 3d 602 (1973), and People v. Clark, 123 Ill. App. 2d 41
(1970)—in which innocent explanations for signs of intoxication created reasonable doubt. As
noted in Janik, 127 Ill. 2d at 403, the defendants in Thomas, Schultz, and Clark suffered head
injuries. Defendant’s claimed exhaustion here is not comparable to the documented head
injuries in those cases.
¶ 22 In People v. Weathersby, 383 Ill. App. 3d 226 (2008), we affirmed a DUI conviction on
the basis of evidence similar to the evidence in this case. In Weathersby, the defendant’s speech
was “ ‘thick-tongued,’ ” his eyes were glassy, a three-quarters-empty bottle of malt liquor was
found in his vehicle, 2 and his breath smelled of alcohol. Id. at 227. The defendant also refused
to take a breath test. Defendant contends, however, that the evidence of his guilt was
insufficient because he was able to drive his car through the intersection without weaving or
jerking, he activated his turn signal, he properly pulled into a parking space, he exited his
vehicle without hesitation and without stumbling or falling, and he was able to communicate
with Michael and Bajak. Defendant’s argument is without merit. A motorist’s ability to
perform a number of tasks without any indication of impairment does not necessarily create a
reasonable doubt in a DUI prosecution. See Tatera, 2018 IL App (2d) 160207, ¶ 29 (upholding
the defendant’s DUI conviction even though he did not hit barricades surrounding a hole in the
road, he successfully completed a right turn into traffic, he did not weave out of his lane or
cross the fog line, he pulled his car to the side of the road without the car falling into a ditch,
he was able to exit his vehicle without assistance, and he did not stumble or otherwise lose his
balance). Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of DUI.
¶ 23 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 24 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County is affirmed.
As part of our judgment, we grant the State’s request that defendant be assessed $50 as costs
for this appeal. 55 ILCS 5/4-2002(a) (West 2016); see also People v. Nicholls, 71 Ill. 2d 166,
178 (1978).
2
The partially empty bottle was circumstantial evidence that the defendant had been drinking. Here
there was direct evidence: defendant’s admission that he had consumed several beers.
-6-
¶ 25 Affirmed.
-7-