Court Concludes Warrantless Blood Draw Was Not Constitutional in Defendant’s DUI Case
People v. Eubanks, 2019 IL 123525 (December 5, 2019) Cook Co. (THOMAS) Appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part; circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded.
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of 1st degree murder, failure to report an accident involving death or injury, and aggravated DUI, for hit-and-run. Late the same night as the accident, Defendant was arrested and refused to submit to blood and urine testing, and refused to take a breath test. Officer took Defendant to the hospital where blood was forcibly taken from him 7 hours after his arrest. Defendant provided a urine sample, nearly 8.5 hours after his arrest, but only after a nurse threatened to catheterize him for the urine sample and then approached him with a catheter.
Section 11-501.2(c)(2) of Vehicle Code is not facially unconstitutional, but it is unconstitutional as applied to Defendant’s case. Police did not appear to be acting with any urgency to get the testing done, and police could have attempted to get a warrant without significant delay or interference with their duties. Thus, no showing that sufficient exigent circumstances to dispense with a warrant. Court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress the blood and urine test results. Conviction of aggravated DUI reversed outright, as State cannot prove the charge without that evidence. First-degree murder conviction reversed, and remanded for new trial, but State may not introduce evidence of Defendant’s blood and urine test results at trial. (KILBRIDE, GARMAN, and KARMEIER, concurring; BURKE, specially concurring; THEIS, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)