from the Circuit Court of the 10th Judicial Circuit No.
15-DT-403, Peoria County, Illinois, Honorable Lisa Y. Wilson,
Attorneys for Appellant: Jerry Brady, State's Attorney,
of Peoria (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Thomas D.
Arado, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's
Office, of counsel), for the People
Attorneys for Appellee: Michael Doubet, of Peoria, for
JUSTICE WRIGHT delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Justices Carter and O'Brien concurred in the
judgment and opinion.
1 The State appeals following the Peoria County circuit
court's dismissal of a charge of driving while under the
influence of alcohol (DUI) against defendant, Garrett Motzko.
The State argues that the court, which dismissed that charge
after granting a motion to suppress, was without authority to
take such action. We reverse and remand for further
2 I. BACKGROUND
3 The State charged defendant with DUI (625 ILCS
5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2014)), as well as other traffic
offenses. Defendant subsequently filed a "Motion to
Suppress Evidence and Quash Arrest Made Without
4 The evidence at the hearing on defendant's motion
established that defendant was involved in a
single-motorcycle accident. Defendant was injured and
attended to by paramedics at the scene. Officer Michael
Bishoff of the Peoria Police Department was dispatched to the
scene, where he interviewed a witness to the accident. The
witness told Bishoff that defendant crashed when trying to
negotiate a curve at a high rate of speed. Bishoff spoke
briefly to defendant at the scene before defendant was
transported to a hospital. Bishoff observed defendant further
at the hospital and conducted a horizontal gaze nystagmus
(HGN) test. Bishoff placed defendant under arrest for
5 On December 22, 2015, the circuit court found that Bishoff
lacked probable cause to arrest and granted defendant's
motion. The State sought clarification on the scope of the
court's ruling, resulting in the following exchange:
"THE COURT: *** I am going to grant the motion
[THE STATE]: Your Honor, that would be a motion to suppress
the evidence collected after the arrest, is that correct?
THE COURT: That's correct.
[THE STATE]: The evidence collected by the officer?
6 After its motion to reconsider was denied, the State filed
a certificate of substantial impairment and notice of appeal.
In the certificate of impairment, the State averred twice
that, as a result of the circuit court's suppression
order, it was "unable to proceed to trial in this
matter." The State also averred that the ruling
"substantially impair[ed]" its ability to proceed.
This court subsequently affirmed the circuit court's
ruling. People v. Motzko, 2017 IL App (3d) 160154.
7 On remand, the State filed a motion in limine to
admit the records of defendant's medical treatment at the
hospital following his accident. In support, the State
pointed out that the court's suppression ruling
suppressed only postarrest evidence and that the treatment
and observations records it sought to introduce were recorded
before the arrest. Defendant filed a motion to strike,
arguing that the State was barred from relitigating the
circuit court's suppression ruling. The circuit court
agreed with defendant and struck the State's motion.
8 At a hearing on March 1, 2018, the State asked that the
matter be set for trial on the DUI charge, as well as the
traffic offenses. The State indicated that it intended to
introduce evidence in the form of doctors' observations
of defendant in the course of treatment at the hospital, as
well as Bishoff s prearrest observations of defendant. The
circuit court set the traffic offenses for trial, but sua
sponte dismissed the DUI charge. The State filed a
certificate of substantial impairment and a notice of appeal.
9 II. ANALYSIS
10 On appeal, the State argues that the circuit court did not
have authority under section 114-1 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure of 1963 (Code of Criminal Procedure) to dismiss the
DUI charge. See 725 ILCS 5/114-1 (West 2014). Defendant
argues that the court not only had the statutory ...