Find Legal Information

JUSTICE WELCH delivered the opinion of the court:

We have before us appeals from two orders entered by the circuit court of EffinghamCounty. The plaintiff, the People of the State of Illinois (the State), appeals an ordergranting a motion by the defendant, Boris P. Bonutti, to suppress the results of a breath-alcohol test. The defendant appeals an order denying his request to rescind the statutorysummary suspension of his driving privileges. For the reasons that follow, we affirm bothorders.

The facts in this case are as follows. On April 26, 2001, at approximately 11:04 p.m.,the defendant's vehicle was stopped by officer Richard Largen of the Illinois State Police forspeeding. Officer Largen conducted field sobriety tests on the defendant, the driver of thevehicle. According to Officer Largen, the defendant failed these tests, was arrested, and wascited for driving under the influence of alcohol.

The defendant was then transported to the Effingham County sheriff's department,where he agreed to take a breath-alcohol test. Officer Largen observed the defendant for 20minutes prior to administering the test. Officer Largen did not observe the defendantregurgitate before taking the test. The results of the test indicated that the defendant had ablood-alcohol content of 0.174. The defendant's driving privileges were immediatelysuspended pursuant to section 11-501.1(c) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Code) (625 ILCS5/11-501.1(c) (West 2000)). On May 21, 2001, the Secretary of State confirmed thestatutory summary suspension of the defendant's driving privileges.

On July 26, 2001, the defendant filed a "Request for Judicial Hearing" seeking arescission of the statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges. The defendantalleged that the breath test taken on April 27, 2001, was unreliable because theadministration of the test did not conform to the procedures outlined by section 11-501.2 ofthe Code (625 ILCS 5/11-501.2 (West 2000)). Specifically, the defendant alleged that hehad not been continuously observed for 20 minutes prior to the testing and, because he hadnot been continuously observed, the "absence of regurgitation during the observation periodwas not confirmed prior to obtaining a breath sample." Essentially, the defendant claimedthat he regurgitated within 20 minutes of taking the test.

A hearing was conducted on September 10, 2001, pursuant to the defendant's petitionseeking a rescission of the statutory summary suspension. Officer Largen was called by thedefendant to testify. Officer Largen testified that the defendant was arrested on April 26,2001, cited for driving under the influence of alcohol, and transported to the EffinghamCounty sheriff's department, where the defendant agreed to submit to a breath test. OfficerLargen was the only person involved with the administration of the breath test.

At 11:50 p.m., Officer Largen read the standard "Warning to Motorists" to thedefendant. At 12:01 a.m., Officer Largen began preparing the breath-test machine. OfficerLargen spent about three minutes entering data into the machine, during which time he kepthis "eye on [the defendant]." The test was administered at approximately 12:05 a.m.

Officer Largen was aware that he was required to continually observe the defendantfor at least 20 minutes prior to the defendant taking the test. Officer Largen understood thatthis is to ensure that the defendant does not "regurgitate, or belch, or anything like that." Officer Largen was cognizant that a regurgitation could result in the presence of mouthalcohol and that the presence of mouth alcohol can affect the accuracy of a breath test and,hence, render it untrustworthy. However, Officer Largen testified that he observed thedefendant at all times during the defendant's custody and that, during that time, thedefendant did not burp, belch, or regurgitate. Officer Largen did acknowledge that at somepoint prior to taking the test, the defendant requested a glass of water, but he stated that thisrequest was denied.

The defendant testified on his own behalf. The defendant acknowledged that he wasarrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and taken to the Effingham Countysheriff's department, where he agreed to take a breath test. However, the defendant claimsthat he regurgitated during the 20 minutes before he took the test.

The defendant testified that he suffers from esophageal reflux disorder. He testifiedthat one of the effects of his condition is that acid from his stomach rises through hisesophagus and enters the back of his throat. When this occurs, he experiences pain that hedescribed as similar to "a heart attack." The defendant testified that during the 20 minutesbefore he took the test, he experienced this pain. The defendant did not tell anybody at thedepartment that he had regurgitated prior to taking the test, but he claimed that he did askfor a glass of water in order to relieve the burning sensation. The defendant stated that hedid not tell anybody at the department that he had this condition, because nobody asked. The defendant testified that he takes Prilosec to help control the symptoms he experiencesfrom esophageal reflux.

After the defendant presented his evidence, the State made a motion for a judgment. The State argued that the testimony of Officer Largen provided sufficient evidence that thedefendant had been observed for more than 20 minutes prior to taking the test and thatOfficer Largen had observed no conduct that would put in question the reliability of thebreath-test results. The State also asked the trial court to find that the defendant was notcredible.

The trial court denied the State's motion and stated, "[A]t this point there has beentestimony presented for the Court to consider eventually what weight to put to that, but therehas been at least enough testimony to shift the burden to the State."

The State then called Officer Largen back to the stand. Officer Largen testified thatthe only comment made by the defendant regarding pain was that his shoulder hurt when thehandcuffs were put on. Officer Largen testified that the defendant made no other commentsregarding discomfort within 20 minutes prior to taking the test and that the defendant didnot exhibit any outward manifestations of pain. Officer Largen stated that the defendant didnot state why he wanted a glass of water and that the defendant engaged in no unusualswallowing.

After hearing the State's evidence, the trial court denied the defendant's petition torescind the statutory summary suspension. The trial court found that Officer Largen hadobserved the defendant for more than the required 20 minutes prior to the testing, that therehad been no medical testimony regarding the effect of the defendant's condition, and thatthere had been no evidence regarding Prilosec. The court stated that although the defendantdescribed the pain as similar to a heart attack, such a pain would be very uncomfortable:"something that [a person] would bring to the attention of someone who is about to ask youto take a breath test." The trial court noted that the "burden had shifted to the State" yet thenfound that there had been no regurgitation and that "defendant had not met his burden ofproof."

On September 14, 2001, the defendant filed a "Supplemental Motion to ExcludeBreath Test Evidence" seeking to exclude the breath-test results from his criminal trial. Thedefendant again claimed that the breath test must be suppressed because he had regurgitatedduring the observation period. On September 17, 2001, the State filed a two-countinformation charging the defendant with driving while under the influence of alcohol (625ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2000)) and driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 ormore (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(1) (West 2000)).

On September 18, 2001, a hearing was held on the defendant's supplemental motionto exclude breath-test evidence from the criminal proceeding. The parties agreed that theevidence presented at the September 10, 2001, hearing could and should be considered bythe trial court. The defendant then presented Dr. Karl Rudert, a physician, to testify onbehalf of the defendant.

Dr. Rudert testified that the defendant has suffered from gastroesophageal refluxdisease (GERD) since 1992 and that the defendant is being treated for this condition. Hestated that GERD is caused by a lack of competency in the lower esophageal sphincter. Thelower esophageal sphincter normally prevents gastric acids in the stomach from rising intothe esophagus. Dr. Rudert testified that the defendant has an incompetent sphincter that"basically doesn't function even while on medications." Dr. Rudert stated that GERD cancause a person to experience a sensation of fluid coming up behind his heart and that thiswill cause chest discomfort and a burning in the back of a person's throat. Dr. Ruderttestified that the medication prescribed for the defendant helps to neutralize acid in thedefendant's stomach so that when the acid does rise, instead of the defendant experiencinga burning sensation, he will simply experience a feeling of fluid rising to the back of histhroat.

Dr. Rudert testified that certain liquids like alcohol, beer, wine, coffee, and drinkswith carbonation can make the symptoms of GERD worse because they dilate the stomachand therefore dilate the lower esophageal sphincter. Dr. Rudert stated that one method totry to control the effects of an incompetent sphincter is to swallow. Dr. Rudert testified thatreflux is silent and that reflux and regurgitation are synonymous.

The defendant also testified at the hearing. He again stated that he had experiencedreflux prior to taking the test and that he did not exhibit any outward manifestations of painbut that he did ask for a glass of water.

After hearing the evidence, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to excludethe breath-test evidence. In its findings, the trial court recalled that at the September 10,2001, hearing, it had made a comment regarding the lack of expert or medical testimonypertaining to the defendant's alleged condition. However, the court noted that at theSeptember 18 hearing medical evidence had been provided that supported the defendant'sclaim that his condition allowed for "fluid [to] come back up through the esophagus andback to the back part of the throat." The court noted that the defendant asked for a glass ofwater but that no question was asked regarding whether the defendant had regurgitated. Thecourt pointed out that if in fact the officer had asked the defendant if he had regurgitated andif the defendant had answered in the negative, the court would then be suspicious of thedefendant's claim that he had actually regurgitated. The trial court found that on the basisof the testimony presented at the second hearing, the defendant had met his burden of proofof presenting sufficient evidence that the test results might be unreliable, and the courttherefore granted the defendant's motion to exclude the results of the breath test from hiscriminal proceedings.

The State filed a certificate of impairment and now appeals the trial court's order ofSeptember 18, 2001. The defendant appeals the trial court's order of September 10, 2001. We turn first to the State's appeal.

The only issue raised by the State on appeal is whether the "trial court erred as amatter of law in granting defendant's motion to exclude the results of his breathalyzer test." The State contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law in its interpretation of theIllinois Administrative Code. The State argues that the regulation should have beenconstrued to mean that if an officer observes the subject for the required 20-minute periodprior to testing and the officer does not observe any outward manifestations indicating thatthe subject has vomited or regurgitated, then the breath test must be presumed reliable. Wedisagree.

Section 11-501.2 of the Code provides in relevant part:

"(a) Upon the trial of any civil or criminal action or proceeding arising out ofan arrest for an offense as defined in Section 11-501 ***, evidence of theconcentration of alcohol *** in a person's *** breath at the time alleged, asdetermined by analysis of the person's *** breath ***, shall be admissible. Wheresuch test is made[,] the following provisions shall apply:

1. Chemical analyses of the person's *** breath *** to be consideredvalid under the provisions of this Section shall have been performed accordingto standards promulgated by the Department of State Police by a licensedphysician, registered nurse, [or] trained phlebotomist acting under thedirection of a licensed physician, certified paramedic, or other individualpossessing a valid permit issued by that Department for this purpose. TheDirector of State Police is authorized to approve satisfactory techniques ormethods, to ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals toconduct such analyses, to issue permits which shall be subject to terminationor revocation at the discretion of that Department[,] and to certify the accuracyof breath testing equipment. The Department of State Police shall prescriberegulations as necessary to implement this Section." 625 ILCS 5/11-501.2(West 2000).

Section 1286.310 of the Illinois Administrative Code provides:

"The following procedures shall be used to obtain a breath sample to determine asubject's [breath-alcohol concentration] with an approved evidentiary instrument:

a) Prior to obtaining a breath analysis reading from a subject, the [breathanalysis operator] or another agency employee shall continuously observe thesubject for at least 20 minutes.

1) During the 20[-]minute observation period the subject shall bedeprived of alcohol and foreign substances and shall not haveregurgitated or vomited.

2) If the subject regurgitates or vomits during the observation(deprivation) period, the process shall be started over by having theindividual rinse the oral cavity with water.

3) If the individual continues to regurgitate or vomit, alternate testingshall be considered." 20 Ill. Adm. Code