field sobriety test in Illinois

2026People v. Morris, 2014 IL App (1st) 130512 , ¶ 20 (citing People v. Elliott, 337 Ill.

2021People v. Elliott, 337 Ill.

2024See People v. Groebe, 2019 IL App (1st) 180503, ¶ 60 (“Although the failure of a field sobriety test can be one factor indicating impairment, a finding of impairment can rest on solely the officer’s testimony”); Janik, 127 Ill. 2d at 402 (“A DUI conviction may be sustained based solely on the testimony of the arresting officer, if credible”). ¶ 27 In People v. Day, 2016 IL App (3d) 150852 , the court held that there was no probable cause to support defendant’s arrest for DUI in affirming the trial court’s order quashing his arrest.

2020“A DUI conviction may be sustained based solely on the testimony of the arresting officer, if credible.” People v. Janik, 127 Ill. 2d 390, 402 (1989).

2025See People v. McKown, 236 Ill. 2d 278, 305-11 (2010).

2013App. 3d 915, 926 (1994) (rejecting the State’s argument that the relevant field includes only forensic scientists and concluding that the general acceptance of the proposed DNA profiling evidence should be evaluated by scientists in the fields of molecular biology, population genetics, and forensic science); cf. McKown II, 236 Ill. 2d at 300 (where the question was whether HGN testing could reliably determine alcohol impairment, relevant scientific fields included medicine, ophthalmology, optometry, and neurophysiology, and thus police officer’s testimony that “HGN testing is generally accepte

2020See People v. Garstecki, 382 Ill.

2019See People v. Garstecki , 382 Ill.

2026Groebe, 2019 IL App (1st) 180503, ¶ 58 . ¶ 40 Credible testimony that a defendant’s eyes were glassy and her breath smelled of alcohol, or that she failed a field sobriety test, is relevant evidence of impairment.

2026A trier of fact can weigh an officer’s observations, “such as the defendant’s conduct, speech, or appearance; the odor of alcohol on the defendant’s breath; and testimony that the defendant failed a field sobriety test.” Groebe, 2019 IL App (1st) 180503 ¶ 58 . ¶ 25 Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant drove under the influence of alcohol.

2020Morris, 2014 IL App (1st) 130512 , ¶ 20; People v. Robinson, 368 Ill.

2020Id.

2022Tatera, 2018 IL App (2d) 160207, ¶¶ 6-10, 29 .

2020See Tatera, 2018 IL App (2d) 160207, ¶ 25 ; Morris, 2014 IL App (1st) 130512 , ¶ 20.

2017See Boomer, 325 Ill.

2017See Boomer, 325 Ill.

2007In State v. Wyatt, 67 Haw. 293, 297 , 687 P.2d 544, 548 (1984), an officer who directed a car to pull over smelled alcohol coming from the car, and, when the driver admitted that she had been drinking, the officer "ordered her to alight from the car and proceeded to administer a field sobriety test." The court held that the traffic stop was valid but noted that the defendant "was later ordered to step out of her automobile and subjected to a [field sobriety] test." Wyatt, 67 Haw. at 304 , 687 P.2d at 552 .

2007In State v. Wyatt, 67 Haw. 293, 297 , 687 P.2d 544, 548 (1984), an officer who directed a car to pull over smelled alcohol coming from the car, and, when the driver admitted that she had been drinking, the officer "ordered her to alight from the car and proceeded to administer a field sobriety test." The court held that the traffic stop was valid but noted that the defendant "was later ordered to step out of her automobile and subjected to a [field sobriety] test." Wyatt, 67 Haw. at 304 , 687 P.2d at 552 .

2007Cf. Fortney, 297 Ill.

2007Cf. Fortney, 297 Ill.

2007See People v. Devine, 98 Ill.

2007See People v. Devine, 98 Ill.

2001See Vega, 145 Ill.

2001See Vega , 145 Ill.

2023Further, “[w]hether a field-sobriety test was performed correctly goes to the test’s admissibility.” People v. Eagletail, 2014 IL App (1st) 130252, ¶ 39 .

2023Ordinarily, “[w]hether a field-sobriety test was performed correctly goes to the test’s admissibility.” People v. Eagletail, 2014 IL App (1st) 130252, ¶ 39 .

2008Sturgess, 364 Ill.

2008Sturgess, 364 Ill.

2025Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984). -9- No. 1-23-1352 odor of alcohol on the defendant’s breath; and testimony that the defendant failed a field sobriety test.” Id. ¶ 58.

2023People v. Phillips, 2015 IL App (1st) 131147, ¶ 24 (stating where a defendant does not challenge the admissibility of a field sobriety test, “but rather its probative value, [the defendant’s] challenge goes to the weight accorded to this evidence, which is a factual determination reserved for the trier of fact”). -9- Because defendant’s argument goes to a factual issue, the failure to attach the NHTSA protocols as evidence central to defendant’s claims cannot be explained away on appeal as a failure to make formal legal arguments or cite legal authority as stated in Hodges. ¶ 37 Defendant argu

2019See Garriott, 253 Ill.

2013App. 3d 915, 926 (1994) (rejecting the State’s argument that the relevant field includes only forensic scientists and concluding that the general acceptance of the proposed DNA profiling evidence should be evaluated by scientists in the fields of molecular biology, population genetics, and forensic science); cf. McKown II, 236 Ill. 2d at 300 (where the question was whether HGN testing could reliably determine alcohol impairment, relevant scientific fields included medicine, ophthalmology, optometry, and neurophysiology, and thus police officer’s testimony that “HGN testing is generally accepte

1994See People v. Green (1983), 118 Ill.

1994See People v. Green (1983), 118 Ill.App.3d 227, 234 , 73 Ill.Dec. 695, 700 , 454 N.E.2d 792, 797 ; People v. Gordon (1980), 82 Ill.App.3d 906, 914 , 38 Ill.Dec. 339, 345 , 403 N.E.2d 570, 576 .