Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Lubienski

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Third District

September 1, 2016

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARK P. LUBIENSKI, Defendant-Appellant.

         Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 15-DT-105; the Hon. Daniel L. Kennedy, Judge, presiding.

          Thomas Moore, of Palos Hills, for appellant.

          James Glasgow, State's Attorney, of Joliet (Mark A. Austill, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

          Panel JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice O'Brien concurred in the judgment and opinion. Justice Schmidt specially concurred, with opinion.

          OPINION

          LYTTON, JUSTICE

         ¶ 1 Defendant, Mark P. Lubienski, appeals from his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), arguing that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. We affirm.

         ¶ 2 FACTS

         ¶ 3 Defendant was charged with DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2012)). No motion to quash arrest or suppress evidence was filed. A bench trial was held on defendant's DUI charge. Officer Lawrence Drish testified that he had been a police officer for seven years and was trained to detect when someone was under the influence of alcohol, which included the standard field sobriety tests. While on duty at approximately 1:08 a.m. on November 16, 2013, he noticed a white truck driven by defendant. He observed the truck's passenger tires briefly cross the white fog line and touch the gravel shoulder when turning right. Drish followed the truck for a while to see if it made any other traffic violations and to arrive at a safe area to effectuate a traffic stop. Defendant committed no further traffic violations. At that time, the video equipment in Drish's squad car was on and working properly. The video recording was played in court.

         ¶ 4 Drish pulled defendant over and noticed that defendant had "bloodshot glassy eyes, " his speech was slurred, and a strong odor of alcohol was coming from inside the truck. Drish had defendant perform field sobriety tests and subsequently arrested defendant for DUI.

         ¶ 5 Upon the conclusion of the evidence, the court found defendant guilty of DUI. Defendant was sentenced to 12 months' court supervision.

         ¶ 6 ANALYSIS

         ¶ 7 On appeal, defendant argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to file a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. Specifically, defendant argues that the motion would have been granted because Drish's investigatory stop was not supported by a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a traffic violation occurred. Defendant's argument does not implicate the validity of his arrest. Instead, it revolves solely around the validity of the investigatory stop. Ultimately, defendant's argument fails, as Drish's decision to stop defendant's truck was reasonable in light of the fact that defendant crossed the fog line in violation of section 11-709(a) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Code) (625 ILCS 5/11-709(a) (West 2012)).

         ¶ 8 To prevail on a claim that trial counsel is ineffective for failing to file a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, defendant must show a reasonable probability that the motion would have been granted and that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the evidence had been suppressed. People v. Colon, 225 Ill.2d 125, 135 (2007); People v. Patterson, 217 Ill.2d 407, 438 (2005).

         ¶ 9 Defendant acknowledges that the seminal case applicable here is People v. Hackett, which examined the distinction between reasonable, articulable suspicion and probable cause with regard to section 11-709(a) of the Code. People v. Hackett, 2012 IL 111781; 625 ILCS 5/11-709(a) (West 2012). Under Hackett an officer may conduct a brief investigative stop of a vehicle where he has a reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify such a stop. Hackett, 2012 IL 111781, ¶ 20. An investigatory stop is proper where a police officer observes a vehicle deviate from his lane, as "[a]n investigatory stop in this situation allows the officer to inquire further into the reason for the lane deviation, either by inquiry of the driver or verification of the condition of the roadway where the deviation occurred." Id. ΒΆ 28; see also 625 ILCS 5/11-709(a) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.