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. Brantley

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fifth District

November 30, 2016

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KEVIN C. BRANTLEY, Defendant-Appellee.

          Rule 23 Order Filed: November 9, 2016

          Motion to Publish Granted: November 30, 2016

         Appeal from the Circuit Court of Randolph County. No. 14-DT-52 Honorable Eugene E. Gross, Judge, presiding.

          Attorneys for Appellant Patrick Delfino, Director, David J. Robinson, Acting Deputy Director, Sharon Shanahan, Staff Attorney, Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor.

          Attorney for Appellee (pro se) Kevin C. Brantley.

          STEWART JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Chapman and Cates concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          STEWART JUSTICE.

         ¶ 1 The defendant, Kevin C. Brantley, was charged with driving under the influence in violation of section 11-501 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(4) (West 2014)). He submitted to blood and urine testing, which revealed the presence of alprazolam, a controlled substance listed as a Schedule IV drug in the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/210(c)(1) (West 2014)). A statutory summary suspension was scheduled to go into effect on April 14, 2015. The defendant filed a petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension, and after a hearing on the matter, the trial court granted the petition. The State appeals.

         ¶ 2 BACKGROUND

         ¶ 3 On December 8, 2014, the defendant was arrested for driving under the influence. He submitted to blood and urine tests, which showed the presence of a Schedule IV controlled substance (alprazolam) in his system.

         ¶ 4 On March 15, 2015, the defendant received a confirmation of statutory summary suspension showing that effective April 14, 2015, his driving privileges would be suspended as a result of his being arrested for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance. The defendant filed a petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension. On April 6 and April 15, 2015, the trial court conducted hearings on the defendant's petition.

         ¶ 5 Officer Joe Crain, a police officer with the city of Chester, testified that on December 8, 2014, he received a telephone call from a witness who had seen the defendant's vehicle run off the road and cross the center line several times. Officer Crain and Officer Joe Jany located the vehicle and started following it. Officer Crain saw the defendant stop his vehicle partly into an intersection and cross the center line three times. Officer Crain activated his emergency lights and siren. According to Officer Crain, the defendant crossed the center line three more times before he eventually pulled over.

         ¶ 6 Officer Crain testified that the defendant stated he crossed the center line because he had a long day and was tired after his earlier trip to his doctor in St. Louis. The defendant told Officer Crain that, although he did not have them on, he was supposed to wear glasses to drive at night. Officer Crain asked to see the defendant's driver's license and proof of insurance. The defendant produced a copy of his breath alcohol ignition interlock device (BAIID) permit but was unable to find his proof of insurance. When the defendant opened the glove compartment to locate his proof of insurance, Officer Crain noticed two prescription medicine bottles. He questioned the defendant about the bottles, and the defendant told him that they were prescription Suboxone[1] that he received from his doctor in St. Louis earlier that day.

         ¶ 7 Officer Crain did not smell alcohol on the defendant's breath, and the defendant did not have slurred speech or bloodshot eyes. Officer Crain asked the defendant to perform field sobriety tests. Officer Crain administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and did not observe any impairment. He did, however, notice that the defendant's pupils were constricted. According to Officer Crain, the defendant failed the walk-and-turn test and the one-leg-stand test. Officer Crain placed the ...


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.