Illinois Supreme Court DUI Roadblock Decision

In September of 2014, I authored an article regarding a recent Third District decision concerning a motorist making a U-turn before entering a DUI roadblock.

In an opinion filed March 24, 2016, People v. Timmsen , 2016 IL 118181, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the circuit court. The decision can be found here: http://illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2016/118181.pdf. In this decision the Supreme Court adopted a totality of circumstances approach in determining whether reasonable suspicion exits for an arrest. "Following this guidance, the totality of the circumstances present in each case must govern whether a motorist’s avoidance of a roadblock amounts to reasonable suspicion. Our position is consistent with the majority of courts that have refused to adopt a bright-line rule that avoiding a roadblock automatically gives rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity." Timmsen page 9.

In deciding this case the Illinois Supreme Court specifically found that "where defendant executed a U-turn 50 feet in front of the roadblock, the totality of the circumstances showed that he was attempting to evade the checkpoint. This gave the police sufficient reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop, and no other suspicious factors were required." Timmsen page 21. The factors the Court found to be persuasive were the proximity of the U-turn to the roadblock (50 feet), the evasive nature of the turn, the U-turn took place across railroad track and that the event occurred at 1:15 am on a Saturday.

It should be noted that the Court did not adopt a bright-line rule in this case. "We decline to adopt either defendant’s or the State’s bright-line rule because we find that both are at odds with a reasonable suspicion determination, which considers the totality of the circumstances of each case. The United States Supreme Court has not addressed the issue of whether evasive behavior such as avoiding a police roadblock is sufficient by itself to generate reasonable suspicion, but has found that such an action is appropriately considered as one of the circumstances contributing to a reasonable suspicion analysis. United States v. Arvizu , 534 U.S. 266, 277 (2002)." Timmsen page 8.

Until the United States Supreme Court makes a ruling on this subject, matters will be decided on a case-by-case basis determining the totality of circumstances in each case. Because of this it is necessary for defense counsel to evaluate any arrest on a case-case basis focusing on the factors present.

For more information on this or any other criminal or traffic law topic, please contact the author James Doerr of Lavelle Law at (847) 705-7555 or via email at jdoerr@lavellelaw.com.