TheNewspaper.com: A Journal of Driving and Politics
Home >Police Enforcement > Drunk Driving Laws > Illinois Court Blocks Forced Blood Draw from Motorists 



Related News
Iowa: Cops May Not Snoop On DUI Consultations With Lawyers

North Carolina: Court Denies Lawyer In DUI Blood Draw

Oregon Appellate Court Says No To Courtroom DUI Test

Nevada Supreme Court Strikes Down Forced Motorist Blood Draw Law

Tennessee Courts Crack Down On Cops Taking Blood From Drivers




View Main Topics:

Get Email Updates
Subscribe with Google
Subscribe via RSS or E-Mail

Back To Front Page

Print It Email It

4/16/2012
Illinois Court Blocks Forced Blood Draw from Motorists
Second highest court in Illinois denies police right to use force to draw blood from drivers.

Judge William E. HoldridgeAn increasing number of states allow police to use any level of force needed to take blood from a motorist accused of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). In Ohio and Texas this procedure is explicitly authorized by statute. In Washington, the state Supreme Court decided to sanction the practice on its own authority. Last Tuesday, the Illinois Court of Appeals was unwilling to take that extreme step.

A three-judge panel upheld a trial court's determination to suppress the evidence created when police held Jacqueline Farris down and forcibly drew her blood. On May 12, 2009 at around 10:30pm, Officer Kevin Orms arrived at the scene of an accident in the village of Bradley and found Farris behind the wheel of one of the vehicles involved. She smelled of alcohol. Orms had her taken to the hospital where he asked for consent to draw her blood. Farris refused. Officer Orms then ordered a nurse to take the blood by force. Three personnel were required to hold Farris down because she resisted.

Lab results showed the blood alcohol content (BAC) of the Farris sample was estimated at 0.285, but a lower court threw out the evidence as inadmissible. Under state law, forcible blood extraction is only authorized when a driver causes death or the personal injury of another driver, passenger or pedestrian.

Prosecutors argued that the officer had probable cause to suspect Farris of being drunk, and there was not time to obtain a warrant before the alcohol would dissipate. In agreeing with the lower court, the appellate majority cited a 2005 state Supreme Court precedent that allowed testing without consent in cases of death or injury but did not touch on cases where no injuries occurred.

"In Jones our supreme court was quite clear that there is no practical need for physical force in obtaining bodily fluid samples since the Vehicle Code eliminates any advantage a DUI arrestee might hope to gain from refusing chemical testing," Judge William E. Holdridge wrote for the majority. "As the Jones court noted, the defendant's refusal to comply with the request for a sample, in and of itself, is sufficient to justify a statutory summary suspension of the defendant's driver's license, the purpose of which is to protect the public from intoxicated motorists."

Under Illinois law, refusing to submit to a test can be used as evidence of guilt and a year-long administrative license suspension is automatically imposed. A copy of the decision is available in a 100k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File Illinois v. Farris (Court of Appeals, State of Illinois, 4/10/2012)



Permanent Link for this item
Return to Front Page



Front Page | Get Updates | Site Map | News Archive | Search | RSS Feed
theNewspaper.com: A journal of the politics of driving
thenewspaper.com