from the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit Nos.
16-TR-23303 16-DT-465, Will County, Illinois. The Honorable
Arkadiusz Z. Smigielski, Judge, Presiding.
JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Presiding Justice Holdridge and Justice Schmidt
concurred in the judgment and opinion.
1 Defendant, Turmond D. Durden, was pulled over by a Village
of Shorewood police officer. After failing field sobriety
tests, defendant was arrested for driving under the influence
(DUI) and transported to the police station. At the station,
an officer read defendant the "Warning to Motorist,
" and defendant submitted to a breathalyzer test showing
his blood alcohol content was within the legal limit. After
that, an officer requested that defendant submit to blood or
urine testing. Defendant refused, and his driver's
license was summarily suspended. Defendant filed a petition
to rescind his statutory summary suspension. The trial court
denied defendant's petition. Defendant appeals, arguing
that his petition to rescind should have been granted because
the officers (1) lacked reasonable suspicion to request blood
or urine testing and (2) failed to issue him a second warning
before requesting blood or urine testing. We affirm.
3 Defendant was arrested and charged with DUI (625 ILCS
5/11-501 (West 2016)) on April 4, 2016. After refusing to
submit to blood or urine testing, defendant's
driver's license was summarily suspended (625 ILCS
5/11-501.1 (West 2016)). Defendant filed a petition to
rescind his statutory summary suspension. A hearing was held
on the petition.
4 At the hearing, Officer Brett Middleton of the Shorewood
police department testified that he was on patrol at
approximately 1:12 a.m. on April 4, 2016, when he observed
defendant commit "[m]ultiple lane violations."
According to Middleton, defendant's vehicle veered toward
his patrol car, crossed over the double yellow line three
times, veered into the painted median twice, and "began
to veer towards the opposite lane of traffic." After
observing defendant commit "approximately five lane
violations, " Middleton activated his overhead lights.
5 Defendant stopped his vehicle, and Middleton approached and
asked for defendant's driver's license. In attempting
to retrieve his license, defendant's "hands slipped
off his wallet numerous times" and before handing the
license to Middleton, defendant dropped it in his lap.
Defendant also dropped his cell phone in his lap. Middleton
asked defendant if he had consumed any alcoholic beverages or
was on any medication. Defendant denied both.
6 Middleton returned to defendant's vehicle and asked him
to step out of the car. At that time, Middleton smelled a
"moderate" odor of an alcoholic beverage. Middleton
also observed that defendant had "slurred speech,
glossy, bloodshot eyes" and "unusual
7 Middleton requested that defendant perform three field
sobriety tests: horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk and turn, and
one leg stand. Defendant did not properly perform any of the
tests and demonstrated "an inability to follow
instructions." Middleton then asked defendant to submit
to a portable breathalyzer test. Defendant refused, and
Middleton arrested defendant for DUI. Middleton determined,
based on defendant's "slurred speech, *** very
dangerous driving, [and] performance on the field sobriety
tests, " that defendant "was impaired and not safe
to operate a motor vehicle." After placing defendant
under arrest, Middleton transported defendant to the
Shorewood police department.
8 At the police station, at 2:07 a.m., Middleton read to
defendant the "Warning to Motorist, " which
explained the consequences of taking or refusing to take a
chemical test for intoxication. The written form, signed by
Middleton, was admitted into evidence at the hearing. While
waiting to take the breathalyzer test, defendant stated
something like "that Dayquil will mess you up."
Middleton testified that defendant made "other unusual
statements" to him.
9 At 2:30 a.m., Officer Ryan Schloesser of the Shorewood
police department administered a breath test to defendant. At
2:43 a.m., Schloesser received the test results, which showed
that defendant had a blood alcohol level of 0.035, which is
well below the legal limit of 0.08. Schloesser then asked
defendant for a blood or urine sample, which defendant
refused to give.
10 At the hearing, Schloesser testified that he asked
defendant to submit to blood or urine testing because, based
on his interactions with defendant, defendant's blood
alcohol level of 0.035 "didn't appear to me to be
the whole cause of how he had been acting." Schloesser
admitted that he asked for a blood sample from defendant
based on his statement that he used Dayquil. Schloesser
testified that he was familiar with Dayquil and found nothing
in Dayquil's warnings restricting one's ability to
drive or operate machinery. Schloesser did not read the
"Warning to Motorist" to defendant before
requesting a blood or urine sample from him.
11 The trial court denied defendant's petition to
rescind, finding that "the officer did have reasonable
grounds to believe that the defendant was driving *** a motor
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs"
based on "[t]he defendant's driving" and
"a moderate odor of alcohol." The court further
found that providing one "Warning to Motorist" was