from the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will
County, Illinois. Circuit Nos. 15-DT-1284, 15-TR-72055, and
15-TR-72056 Honorable Carmen Goodman, Judge, Presiding.
JUSTICE McDADE delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Presiding Justice Holdridge concurred in the
judgment and opinion.
1 The trial court granted the petition to rescind statutory
summary suspension filed by defendant, Ahmet Gocmen. The
State appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in
granting the petition. We affirm.
3 Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of
drugs or combination of drugs (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(4) (West
2014)) and improper lane usage (625 ILCS 5/11-709 (West
2014)). His driver's license was summarily suspended.
Defendant filed a petition to rescind statutory summary
suspension, which alleged the officer did not have reasonable
grounds to believe defendant had been in control of the
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
4 A hearing was held on defendant's petition. The sole
witness was Officer Adam Beaty who testified that he had been
a police officer for the Village of Shorewood for two years.
He had never received any driving under the influence (DUI)
drug training, though he had received DUI alcohol training.
On September 14, 2015, at 11:10 a.m., he responded to a call
for an unconscious person in a vehicle who was possibly
having a seizure. When he arrived on the scene, Beaty noticed
a Ford Explorer with its passenger side tires on the grass
and part of the vehicle still on the road. Paramedics were
already present, attending to defendant.
5 While on the scene, Beaty observed a Red Bull can on the
passenger's side of defendant's vehicle. The can
"had been either cut or tore in half, with burn marks on
the *** interior [of] the can." On the inside, bottom of
the can, Beaty noticed "a brown, tanish residue."
Beaty performed a "NARK Cocaine ID Swipe" to test
for drugs in the can. He was trained to perform the NARK
test, but had never performed a NARK test on any evidence
prior to this time. He took the test out of the package and
touched it to the bottom of the can. The test then turned
blue. He had been taught during his training that the blue
color indicated the presence of opiates. Beaty also found a
used one millimeter syringe in the vehicle. A brown, granular
substance was also found in a small baggy in defendant's
wallet, for which test results were not available at the time
of the hearing. Beaty was asked whether he made "any
observations of [defendant] before he left the scene."
Beaty stated, "Other than what paramedics told me,
no." Defendant never performed any field sobriety tests.
6 Beaty talked to the paramedics about defendant. He asked if
there was any indication of intoxication or alcohol. The
paramedics indicated that there was not. The paramedics did
tell Beaty that there was a fresh track mark on
defendant's arm where a needle would have been used. The
paramedics also told Beaty that defendant was sweating, had
pinpoint pupils, and had a heart rate of 144 beats per
minute. Defendant was also in and out of consciousness.
7 Beaty met defendant at the hospital. He did not make any
observations of defendant at the hospital other than that he
was tired and lethargic. Defendant indicated to Beaty that he
was diabetic. Beaty arrested defendant for DUI of drugs. He
based the arrest on the NARK swipe, the syringe, and the
baggy with the granular substance in defendant's wallet.
8 In granting defendant's petition to rescind, the court
"One of the things, unlike alcohol-and the case
law's [sic] very clear on this-to show
intoxicating or drugs, it can't be based purely on lay
Here, the witness must be qualified still as an expert and,
and must establish the effects of the drugs, which I, I just
did not hear. I heard about how he could test for the
presence of, of drugs. And here we have that it turned blue
In addition, we still have the other factors that we must
look at. And we must look at what ...