from the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will
County, Illinois. Circuit No. 16-DT-1285 The Honorable Carmen
Julia Lynn Goodman, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE CARTER delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Justice Wright concurred in the judgment and
1 Defendant, Daksh Relwani, was charged with driving under
the influence of alcohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West
2016)). He filed a petition to rescind his statutory summary
suspension, which the trial court denied after a hearing.
Defendant filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court
also denied. Defendant appeals. We affirm the trial
3 On October 10, 2016, at about 3:30 a.m., defendant was
asleep in the driver's seat of his vehicle in the parking
lot of a Walgreens drug store in Joliet, Will County,
Illinois. Defendant was the only person in the vehicle at the
time. The keys to the vehicle were in the ignition, and the
engine was running. Police officers approached the vehicle,
woke defendant, and subsequently arrested defendant for DUI.
After defendant was arrested, he was taken to the police
station, where he allegedly refused to submit to some form of
chemical testing. Defendant's driver's license was
later summarily suspended by the Secretary of State.
4 In November 2016, defendant filed a petition to rescind the
statutory summary suspension of his driver's license.
Defendant alleged in the petition that rescission was
warranted based on, among other things, the following two
grounds: (1) the summary suspension statute did not apply in
this case since defendant was located in a private parking
lot and not on a public highway during the incident in
question and (2) defendant did not refuse to submit to
5 A hearing was held on the petition to rescind in January
2017. In his case-in-chief, defendant testified to many of
the facts set forth above. Defendant also stated, among other
things, that the police officer asked him at the police
station to submit to a breath test and that he agreed.
Defendant identified in court the copy of the notice of
summary suspension that he was given by the arresting officer
at the police station, and the document was admitted into
evidence. According to defendant, as he viewed the document
in court, none of the check boxes on the document were marked
to show whether defendant had submitted to, or refused,
chemical testing, and the space provided for the officer to
write in the date and time of any refusal was left blank.
6 On cross-examination, when the prosecutor asked defendant
if he had told the police officer that he had just driven
down Larkin Avenue from Chicago, defense counsel objected
that the question was beyond the scope of direct examination.
The trial court overruled the objection, stating that
"this [was] cross-examination." Defendant responded
that he came home from a restaurant with his family.
Defendant stated that he did not remember the exact words he
had stated to the officer but acknowledged that he had been
driving from the restaurant with his family (or that he told
the officer that). The prosecutor asked defendant where the
restaurant was located, and defense counsel objected again,
stating that the question was beyond the scope of direct
examination. The trial court overruled the objection,
commenting that it was cross-examination, so the question
could not be beyond the scope. When defendant was asked
during cross-examination whether he was told the results of
the breath test that he had agreed to take, defendant stated
that he did not remember. Defendant also stated, upon
inquiry, that he did not remember whether the officer had
asked him to submit to a blood or urine test or whether he
had refused that request. During further cross-examination,
defendant stated that he remembered performing some of the
field sobriety tests that evening but did not remember
performing all of the field sobriety tests. When defendant
was asked if the reason he did not remember was because he
was intoxicated and had taken heroin and clozapine that
evening, defendant responded, "I, I don't know. I
7 On redirect examination, defendant stated that while he was
at the police station, he was administered a drug and then
taken to the hospital for treatment because of his condition.
8 After defendant testified, he rested his case-in-chief. The
prosecutor moved for a directed finding in the State's
favor on the petition to rescind. During argument on the
motion (and in opening statement), defense counsel suggested
to the trial court that it could take judicial notice of what
was in the court file (presumably the sworn report) and
commented that the document in the court file was marked that
defendant had refused to submit to, or failed to complete,
chemical testing, which was completely different from the
document defendant received.
9 After the arguments on the motion for directed finding had
concluded, the trial court granted the motion in favor of the
State on both of the grounds for rescission listed above. In
making its decision, the trial court commented:
"Here, privately-owned parking lots are-is really
referring to if you're in your own driveway and they see
people sitting in their own driveway and they walk out to
Here we have not truly established the fact, by the
petitioner's case, that this truly was-they said he was
in the Walgreens, that it was privately-owned parking lot. If
I don't know that. I can't assume that simply because
it is the parking lot of Walgreens.
Also, it was put into evidence the officer's-and taken
judicial notice of the summary suspension revocation. I will
admit that somehow or another this copy, it says
"Transfer to SDF" on here, which is not on the
original that I have. Not only on the original that-or on the
one that's in the file does it show the refusal date at
the place and time at the top of the ticket looks blank.
But this is where this gets-and this is why I say this is a
copy. It says, [b]ecause you refused-there's a line down
here, because you refused to submit to or to-or fail to
complete testing, your driving privileges will be suspended
for a minimum of 12 months.
On the copy that was in the-and this is dealing with the
defects of an officer's report and a summary suspension
does not show-it shows a big line that, that's clearly
marked in. The copy, though, had you take[n] a really good
look at this copy, it looks like at one point in time it was
marked. It looks like a little bitty X that was there, but it
is light and it's faint.
Now, the defendant did testify that he did not-he clearly
testified that he was woken up by the police officers and
that he was sleeping behind the wheel of a car on direct