Background
Eric Aloisio was charged with DUI, traffic offenses, and carrying a concealed weapon while under the influence after his vehicle allegedly struck a tree. The circuit court suppressed evidence resulting from his arrest after finding that the officers’ testimony did not establish probable cause to arrest him.
The State timely sought reconsideration. The circuit court maintained suppression of Aloisio’s hospital blood draw but reversed its ruling as to a firearm. Rather than appeal within 30 days of that ruling, the State filed a later motion seeking an attenuation hearing on whether the medically ordered blood draw was sufficiently disconnected from the unlawful arrest.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court did not reach the merits of the suppression ruling or the State’s attenuation theory. It held that the State’s attenuation motion was an impermissible successive postjudgment motion because attenuation was part of the original suppression issue and could have been raised earlier.
Because the successive motion did not toll the deadline to appeal, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. The appellate court therefore vacated the orders granting the attenuation hearing and denying the attenuation motion, and ordered the State’s January 14, 2025 motion dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- An attenuation argument is part of the suppression question and cannot be raised later as a separate postjudgment issue.
- A successive postjudgment motion does not extend the time for the State to appeal a suppression ruling.
- When a trial court lacks jurisdiction over a successive motion, the proper appellate remedy is to vacate the resulting orders and dismiss the motion.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the strict timing rules governing State appeals from suppression orders. Prosecutors must raise attenuation with the suppression dispute or timely seek reconsideration or appeal; a later attempt to litigate attenuation cannot preserve appellate jurisdiction.