Background
On July 6, 2024, Deputy Ryal Albin arrested Jermain Cervantes for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Cervantes moved to quash the arrest and suppress all evidence, arguing the officer lacked probable cause. At the suppression hearing, the trial court viewed dash camera and body camera video footage and concluded that the State failed to establish probable cause, granting Cervantes’s motion. The State appealed, arguing the evidence presented clearly established probable cause to arrest.
Deputy Albin, a traffic division officer since 2017 with advanced DUI training, observed Cervantes’s vehicle cross the white shoulder line multiple times near Route 53 in Wilmington at approximately 2:31 a.m. Upon initiating a traffic stop, Albin detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage, observed bloodshot and glassy eyes, and found an open beer bottle in the vehicle. Cervantes admitted to consuming four or five beers after work at 6 p.m. and mistakenly stated the time as 11 p.m. or 12 a.m., despite it being after 2:30 a.m.
Albin administered three standardized field sobriety tests. On the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, Cervantes exhibited all six clues of impairment (decision point: four). On the walk and turn test, he displayed four clues (decision point: two), including failure to follow instructions and arm use for balance. On the one-leg stand test, he displayed two clues (decision point: two). When asked to submit to a preliminary breath test, Cervantes stated he was nervous rather than outright refusing.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court reversed, holding that Deputy Albin possessed probable cause to arrest Cervantes for DUI. The court applied the legal standard requiring that probable cause exist when a reasonable and prudent person, possessing the officer’s knowledge at the time of arrest, would believe the defendant committed the offense. In the DUI context, this requires sufficient evidence allowing the officer to objectively and reasonably believe that consumption of alcohol impaired the subject’s mental or physical faculties, reducing the ability to think or act with ordinary care.
Considering the totality of circumstances, the court found probable cause clearly established: the vehicle’s significant shoulder line departures (captured on video), bloodshot and glassy eyes, odor of alcohol, open beer bottle, admission of four to five beers, a time misstatement of over two hours, and sufficient field sobriety test clues across all three tests. The court noted that Cervantes failed to follow instructions during the walk and turn test, expressed confusion, and used his arms for balance on both the walk and turn and one-leg stand tests. The court emphasized that impaired driving observations by the officer—the most important evidence—were not adequately considered by the trial court.
The appellate court rejected Cervantes’s argument that the trial court correctly found he performed the field sobriety tests “without issue,” observing that video evidence clearly showed impairment indicators during testing. The court distinguished prior cases involving unreliable tests or credibility problems, finding those factors absent here.
Key Takeaways
- Probable cause for DUI arrest requires more than suspicion but need not rise to evidence sufficient for conviction; a commonsense evaluation of the totality of circumstances applies.
- An officer’s observation of impaired driving—such as crossing shoulder lines—is a significant independent factor establishing probable cause and should not be discounted by trial courts.
- Field sobriety test clues, even when a defendant appears to communicate clearly and not visibly sway, constitute substantial evidence of impairment when the requisite number of clues are displayed.
- A defendant’s behavior during the stop—such as misstatement of time, admissions of drinking, refusal of breath testing, and nervousness—contributes to the probable cause analysis when considered alongside physical indicators.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the Illinois standard for probable cause in DUI arrests, rejecting a trial court’s narrow focus on superficial indicators of sobriety. By reversing the suppression order, the appellate court reinforced that courts must consider all objective evidence systematically, particularly officer observations of impaired driving documented on video. The ruling protects law enforcement’s ability to arrest based on trained observations and standardized testing protocols when the evidence, viewed as a whole, establishes probable cause.
For defendants and defense counsel, the decision underscores the importance of challenging probable cause at the threshold, as appellate review of suppression orders applies a highly deferential standard to factual findings. The court’s emphasis on the totality-of-circumstances test—which incorporates impaired driving, objective physical signs, admissions, and test results—means that suppression motions will rarely succeed absent significant gaps or credibility problems in the officer’s testimony or evidence.