People v. Bond, 2016 IL App (1st) 152007 (November). Episode 262 (Duration 8:00)

Can a Blue Island police officer enter the city of Chicago, an adjoining municipality, and exercise his police powers when he observes an illegally parked vehicle in violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code?

See also Episode 195, People v. Reynolds, 2016 IL App (4th) 150572 (June)

Illinois DUI Resource Page

Check out the Illinois DUI Resource Page

to learn more about DUI in Illinois.

 

People v. Acevedo, 2017 IL App (3d) 150750 (March). Episode 309 (Duration 6:09)

legal discovery sanction in this rescission hearing consisted of a finding that the defendant met his initial burden, then the State was allowed to have the officer testify to the probable cause for the DUI arrest.

DUI Arrest

Case begins with a car accident.

Defendant failed the fields and blew a .183 on the PBT.

When the officer got to the scene the defendant had difficulty removing his license from his wallet. She testified that the defendant told her he had been at a union meeting and that he had 4 to 5 beers. Defendant was stumbling and swaying.

Illinois DUI Resource Page

Check out the Illinois DUI Resource Page

to learn more about DUI in Illinois.

Discovery Violation

In this DUI case the State was ordered to turn over the squad car video.

The video did exist at one time. The officer made a copy of the DVD from the recording system in her squad car and turned it in with her report. However, it was later found that the DVD was cracked and would not play.

When the officer went to make another copy she discovered it had been recorded over.

The Sanction

The trial court found that a discovery violation had occurred and, as a sanction, imputed that the defendant had sustained his burden of proof and shifted the burden to the State to show cause why the suspension should be sustained.

The trial court declined to bar the officer’s testimony of the arrest, her observations, and the SFSTs as a sanction.

Issue

The defendant argues that the trial court erred by not barring the testimony of the arresting officer as sanctions for a discovery violation.

The defendant argues that, as a sanction, the arresting officer should have been barred from testifying to the events that would have been seen on the DVD.

Analysis

This reviewing court did not read People v. Kladis, 2011 IL 110920 as broadly as defendant did.

Despite the defendant’s argument that Kladis stands for the proposition that testimony must be barred whenever there is a discovery violation that results in missing evidence, the court concluded that Kladis does not dictate such a hard and fast rule.

Holding

There was no abuse of discretion here.

In this case, the trial court considered available options for sanctions and determined that imputing that the defendant had met his burden of proof regarding a prima facie case for rescission was the appropriate sanction, rather than completely barring the arresting officer’s testimony regarding the stop.

PBT Side Note

Also, attorneys should take note of the proper way to admit a PBT result in a rescission hearing.

Under section 11-501.5 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, a PBT, like other field sobriety tests, is admissible to establish that probable cause existed to arrest the defendant for driving under the influence, even though the PBT is not admissible as evidence of intoxication in a criminal proceeding. 625 ILCS 5/11-501.5.

In order to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the results of 5 the PBT, the witness must testify that the PBT machine is one approved for use by police officers, and that the device was checked for accuracy every 93 days by a person specially trained to perform such tasks. 20 Ill. Adm. Code 1286.240; 20 Ill. Adm. Code 1286.250 (2011).

In addition, the witness must testify that the test was administered according to an operational procedure programmed into the instrument and that the test consisted of only one breath analysis readi...

People v. Turner, 2018 IL App (1st) 170204 (February). Episode 462 (Duration 9:30)

Good faith exception saves this warrantless blood draw.

Collision

Shortly after 10 p.m. on July 2, 2011, the defendant’s pickup truck collided with a motorcycle carrying two persons.

The truck and motorcycle had collided in an intersection. The driver of the motorcycle, James McFall, was killed; his wife, Kasey McFall, sustained serious injuries. The defendant was taken to the emergency room at St. James Hospital, where two blood samples were drawn from him.

Officer Murphy recalled that the defendant’s “speech was slurred and mumbled” when he spoke to hospital staff and that his eyes were “glassy and bloodshot.”

Not High Speeds

Based on the extent of deformation of the motorcycle’s wheelbase, Coulom calculated that the motorcycle’s speed at impact was approximately 25 miles per hour. Using another formula, he determined “an approximate speed of 23 miles per hour which was consistent with the 25 [miles per hour] I got with the wheelbase deformation.”

He applied a separate “energy formula” to estimate that the pickup truck’s speed was between 13 and 15 miles per hour at the time of the collision. Officer Coulom testified that the pickup truck’s “black box” data recorder reflected that five seconds prior to the crash, the truck’s speed was approximately 10 miles per hour.

The recorder indicated that the truck’s brakes were applied five seconds before the impact.

Blood Samples

According to Escamilla’s records, the defendant admitted to a nurse that he was drinking alcohol before the accident.

The first blood draw was taken pursuant to a physician’s order as a part of his emergency room treatment, at approximately 10:46 p.m. At the request of police, nurses performed a second blood draw for inclusion in a “DUI kit” shortly after midnight on July 3, 2011.

Both tests indicated that the defendant’s blood alcohol content was above the legal limit. The hospital blood was 0.142 and the ISP blood was .118.

Charged With Aggravated DUI

The defendant was charged with 10 counts of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol and reckless homicide.

Defendant Says He Didn’t Consent

Defendant testified that at the hospital, he was asked for a blood sample “around three to four times” by nurses, in the presence of police. He stated that he “continually asked the reason why they wanted to draw blood” but was given no reason. He further testified that at some point he was told “that in order for me to go home that I would have to give a blood sample.”

He claimed that he never consented to the DUI kit blood draw.

State Says When There Is  A Death That’s Different

The State argued that McNeely was distinguishable and that the DUI kit blood draw was permissible under section 11-501.2 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Code), which states that “if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle driven by *** a person under the influence of alcohol *** has caused the death or personal injury to another, that person shall submit, upon the request of a law enforcement officer, to a chemical test or tests of his or her blood, breath or urine for the purpose of determining the alcohol content thereof.” 625 ILCS 5/11-501.2(c)(2) (West 2010).

8 Year Sentence

The court found that the defendant’s failure to yield was the proximate cause of James McFall’s death and Kasey McFall’s injuries. Accordingly, the court found the defendant guilty of all 10 charged counts. The trial court sentenced the defendant to two concurrent eight-year sentences on counts I and V.

People v. Gocmen, 2017 IL App (3d) 160025 (March). Episode 331 (Duration 7:57)

Officer untrained in the use of narcotics doesn’t know enough to make this DUI drug arrest.

Facts

Officer responds to the scene of an unconscious person in a vehicle.

He finds a Ford Explorer with its passenger side tires on the grass and part of the vehicle still on the road.

Paramedics were already present, attending to defendant. He finds Red Bull can cut in half with burn marks on the interior. He runs a cocaine swipe on it and comes back positive.

There is also a used one millimeter syringe in the vehicle.

A brown, granular substance was also found in a small baggy in defendant’s wallet, for which test results were not available at the time of the hearing.

There were no signs of alcohol use, but the paramedics did say that there was a fresh track mark on defendant’s arm where a needle would have been used. The paramedics also noted that defendant was sweating, had pinpoint pupils, and had a heart rate of 144 beats per minute.

Defendant was also in and out of consciousness.

This officer had zero training in the detection of narcotics use.

Defendant was able to tell the officer he was a diabetic.

The officer arrested defendant for DUI drugs at the hospital.

Rescission Granted

The trial court granted the motion to rescind the statutory summary suspension.

State’s Argument

The State stressed defendant’s physical symptoms: that defendant was sweating, had pinpoint pupils, and had a heart rate of 144 beats per minute.

However, the officer admitted that he never observed defendant and only knew these symptoms by speaking to the paramedics. As he never observed these symptoms and did not have any training or experience in DUI of drugs, his opinion as to the cause of said symptoms is tenuous at best.

Specifically, the State argues “the unfortunate explosion in illicit drug use throughout all sectors of our society has made the effects of drugs on people common knowledge.”

The State exaggerates the pervasiveness of drug use. It defies logic and borders on insulting to say that the average person in Illinois is so familiar with illicit drug use that he or she is able to recognize its effects.

Strong Dissent

The dissent says that there was also a baggie of what field tested as positive for drugs, as well as an uncapped syringe lying on the passenger seat.

Paramedics advised the officer that defendant had not only a hole in his arm from a recent injection, but also track marks on his arm. One need not be a 20-year police veteran or drug expert to connect these dots.

Track marks are a common sign of a drug abuser who injects his or her drug of choice repeatedly, ultimately causing collapse of veins and distinct marks in the affected area.

Defendant is not the first drug user to tell police he is a diabetic upon being found with a hypodermic syringe.

Analysis

The reviewing court agreed noting that the main problem was that the officer had no training or experience that would enable him to distinguish between a diabetic reaction and a drug reaction.

Can Residue

Moreover, the officer further based his arrest on the residue found at the bottom of the Red Bull can. 

Test

Though he conducted a “NARK Cocaine ID Swipe” of the residue, which he said tested positive for opiates, we find it curious that a “Cocaine ID” test would be used to test for opiates when cocaine is not an opiate. See People v. Vernor, 66 Ill. App. 3d 152, 154-55 (1978) (finding that opiates are narcotic drugs while cocaine is not).

Therefore,

People v. Biagi, 2017 IL App (5th) 150244 (January). Episode 297 (Duration 8:23)

Trial court erred in granting this petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension in this drug based DUI arrest.

Facts

Defendant is driving really slow when he pulls over and stops. There is, of course, a State trooper following him. 

The trooper pulls in behind him because he thinks defendant has car trouble.

– Right away the trooper notices the defendant really can’t follow instructions is acting kinda spacey.

– His speech was slow.

– He said “good afternoon” when it was just after midnight.

– He was slumped down in his seat.

– His movements were deliberate and delayed, and…

– his pants are also undone and falling down to his thighs.

He fails the FST’s including the HGN.

The trooper is trained in detecting drugged driving.

After he is arrested, police find some pills in his pocket.

There is no odor of alcohol and defendant denied taking any narcotics or prescription pills.

Trial Court Ruling

Here, the circuit court found that the trooper activated his “take down” lights, being white lights to illuminate the area, and exited his vehicle. These actions would be seen by a defendant as a command to stay put.

Therefore, defendant was detained by the trooper.

Reversed

The appellate court said otherwise. In People v. Luedemann, the Illinois Supreme Court held that shining a light on a vehicle is not a seizure where there is no coercion or a threat of coercion present.

Accordingly, this trooper’s use of the flashlight and takedown lights did not constitute a seizure of the defendant without the presence of some form of coercion.

Coercion

In determining whether coercion is present–thereby resulting in a seizure–courts examine the following factors, which were established by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980):

“(1) the threatening presence of several officers;

(2) the display of a weapon by an officer;

(3) some physical touching of the person of the citizen; and

(4) the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.”

The Mendenhall factors “are not exhaustive and *** a seizure can be found on the basis of other coercive police behavior that is similar.

The Video

A review of the video in the record reveals…

* no other officers present

* no display of a weapon

* no physical touching of the defendant’s person, and

* no language or tone of voice to indicate that compliance was compelled.

Regarding the Mendenhall factors, there must be some such evidence; otherwise, any inoffensive contact between a citizen and a police officer cannot, as a matter of law, constitute a seizure of the citizen.

There was no coercive behavior by the trooper, nor any threat thereof, nor was there any physical force or show of authority to restrain the defendant’s liberty.

For these reasons, we find the encounter between the defendant and the trooper prior to the observation of signs that the defendant was under the influence–was consensual and not a seizure, thereby rendering inapplicable any fourth amendment implications.

As a result, the circuit court erred by finding that a seizure had occurred.

Community Caretaking

Additionally, this encounter legitimately began as a community caretaking function.

More Than Just Crime Investigation

The United States Supreme Court established that local law enforcement officers ‘frequently investigate vehicle accidents in ...

People v. Ernsting, 2018 IL App (5th) 160330 (January). Episode 454 (Duration 9:07)

Ronald Henson testified that blood in the mouth produces unreliable breathalyzer results and would tend to produce a disproportionately higher BAC.

Car Crash

At approximately 11 p.m., the defendant crashed her 2011 Chevrolet Camaro into an unoccupied pickup truck that was parked along a street near her home in Steeleville. The defendant’s dog was riding with her at the time, and the impact of the collision caused the car’s airbags to deploy. At the scene of the accident, the defendant stated that she did not require medical treatment and that her dog had distracted her driving.

She exhibited signs of alcohol impairment, however, and failed multiple field sobriety tests. As a result, she was arrested and charged with DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2016)) and was transported to the Randolph County jail for the administration of a breath-alcohol test.

The Breath Test

The defendant’s breath-alcohol test was administered by Randolph County Sheriff’s Deputy Kyle Colvis, using an Intox EC/IR II breath-test machine. The testing procedure was video recorded, but the recording has no audio. After the defendant’s first attempt to provide a sufficient breath sample failed because she inserted the machine’s mouthpiece too far into her mouth, Colvis removed the mouthpiece with his right hand, purged the machine, and then reinserted the mouthpiece so that the defendant could try again.

The defendant’s second attempt was successful, and the machine indicated that her BAC was 0.215.

However, the officer had not checked the defendant’s mouth for blood prior to her performance of the breath test, even though he had been trained to check a subject’s mouth prior to and after the pre-test 20-minute observation period. 

She was thus charged with operating her vehicle while her BAC was 0.08 or more (id. § 11-501(a)(1)).

Mouth Check

We note that the “DUI checklist” states, “CHECK MOUTH PRIOR TO AND AFTER 20 MINUTE PERIOD,” but does not reference “foreign substances.” Colvis testified that he was not “familiar with the Illinois Administrative Code regulations,” but he agreed that blood in a subject’s mouth would be considered a “foreign substance” such as chewing gum or chewing tobacco. Colvis further agreed that if a subject had blood in the mouth, a blood or urine test would be preferable to a breath test and that he would “at least” have the subject “rinse their mouth out” and then restart the 20-minute observation period. Colvis acknowledged that the purpose of checking a subject’s mouth before and after the observation period is to ensure reliable test results.

Issue

Defendant changes the reliability of the tests used in her DUI prosecution.

The defendant’s motion specifically alleged, among other things, that when her car’s airbags had deployed, she had “sustained an injury to her mouth which caused a cut and, therefore, bleeding, in the inside of her mouth.” The motion further alleged that assuming that there was any measurable amount of alcohol in the blood, the blood in the defendant’s mouth would have materially affected the reliability of the test results.

Did She Act Like She Was .215?

Colvis acknowledged that the defendant had not stumbled or staggered during the testing procedures. Colvis did not recall whether the defendant had questioned the breath-test results in his presence. The defendant’s husband, Dale Ernsting, testified that on May 7, 2016, he and the defendant had purchased a used Jeep in the morning and had spent the day running errands in it.

People v. Day, 2016 IL App (3d) 150852 (January). Episode 294 (Duration 10:56)

Field Sobriety Tests Administered On Wet Surface Were Invalid Creating Probable Cause Problems In This DUI Arrest.

Field Sobriety Tests…

This Statutory summary suspension is rescinded after improper SFSTs fail to establish probable cause for DUI arrest.

Facts

The officer in this DUI arrest administered the field sobriety tests in an improper fashion by requesting the defendant perform them on a wet surface while it was raining.

This improper administration alone significantly impairs the probative weight that can be given to those tests.

Illinois DUI Resource Page

Check out the Illinois DUI Resource Page

to learn more about DUI in Illinois.

He Passed The SFSTs

Even further, despite the weather conditions, the defendant’s performance on the tests was reasonable, standing on one foot for 30 seconds without using his arms for balance and walking a straight line for 18 steps without stepping off the line.

Trial Judge Ruling

Those results would not lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that the defendant was impaired by alcohol.

Issue

The ultimate question is whether the arrest was supported by probable cause.

This cases addresses head on exactly what weight should be given to SFSTs when the NHTSA standards are not exactly followed.

Probable Cause

Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts known to the officer at the time of the arrest are sufficient to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that the arrestee has committed a crime. Such a determination must be based upon the totality of the circumstances.

Probable cause must rise to a level higher than mere suspicion.

It must also rise to a level higher than “reasonable, articulable suspicion,” the lesser standard required to justify an investigatory stop, rather than a full arrest.

The State Pointed To…

The State lists a number of factors that, it argues, would reasonably have led the officer to believe that the defendant was driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Specifically, the State relies heavily on the fact that the defendant “failed to perform both field sobriety tests as instructed.”

The State also points out that the defendant admitted to drinking, “had the strong odor of alcohol on his breath,” had bloodshot eyes, and slurred his speech.

Analysis

Upon closer examination, however, the State’s purported laundry list of factors breaks down.

Here the officer testified—explicitly and repeatedly—that he did not administer those tests (one-leg stand and walk-and-turn) properly.

He admitted that it was improper to administer those tests on wet pavement and improper to administer them while it was raining.

He admitted that the field sobriety tests should not be administered in even a drizzle.

He even agreed that the improper administration of those tests rendered them “invalid.”

Officer Had Credibility Issues

Notably, the officer initially could not remember the weather on the night in question.

After checking his report, however, the officer agreed that it was raining. Still later, the officer apparently had an independent recollection that it was only drizzling.

The defendant testified that the roadway was wet and slick.

While the officer testified that the defendant briefly lost his balance in walking from his vehicle, the defendant denied this accusation.

The trial court was within its right to settle credibility issues in favor of the defendant.

Clearly,

People v. Fernandez, 2016 IL App (1st) 141667 (December). Episode 283 (Duration 3:57)

17 years of for possession with intent to deliver reversed in this search warrant case.

Facts

Fernandez’s convictions stemmed from the recovery of heroin, weapons, and ammunition from a single family home and detached garage from a Chicago home.

Police executed a search warrant.

Over 900 grams of heroin and some guns were pulled from his detached garage.

In a bedroom, officers found a passport and insurance cards belonging to Fernandez, as well as framed pictures of Fernandez with the woman in the car.

Neither the passport nor the insurance card listed an address for Fernandez. The closet held both men’s and women’s clothes.

There were additional framed pictures of Fernandez with the same woman hanging on the wall in the living room area. Police recovered two .357-caliber handguns under the hood of the van along with a brick of suspect heroin and large bags containing smaller knotted bags of heroin.

They also recovered ammunition for the .357-caliber handguns and a box of ammunition for a .38-caliber handgun.

Other officers recovered an additional .32-caliber gun under the hood of the van. A gun was also in the bedroom.

Constructive Possession

Constructive possession exists where there is no personal dominion over the contraband, but the defendant has control over the area where the contraband was found.

The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the contraband and exercised “immediate and exclusive” control over the area where the contraband was discovered.

Search & Seizure Resource Page

Check out the

Illinois Search And Seizure Resource Page

to learn more about the 4th amendment.

He Live There?

The problem here is that there was insufficient evidence of habitation.

Evidence of residency or habitation often takes the form of rent receipts, utility bills, or mail, none of which link Fernandez to the address that was searched.

To the contrary, the evidence at trial revealed that Fernandez received mail at a completely different place.

Defendant had keys to the place, his passport and insurance card were found on a dresser, and his picture with a women hung on the wall. Nonetheless, this did not demonstrate that he had control of the premises.

Plus, the presence of an unidentified man on the premises at the time the police executed the search warrant weighs against a finding that Fernandez maintained control over the premises.

Reversed outright.

People v. Staple, 2016 IL App (4th) 160061 (December). Episode 279 (Duration 8:36)

Defendant plead guilty to misdemeanor DUI, so the trial judge dismissed the felony DUI.

Charges

Defendant was simultaneously charged with misdemeanor DUI and felony DUI for the exact same course of conduct.

He had both a “DT” file and a “CF” file.

Dismissal

He plead guilty to the misdemeanor and moved the trial court to dismiss the felony charges, claiming double jeopardy had attached when he plead to the misdemeanor.

The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The reviewing court reversed this decision.

Double Jeopardy

The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states via the fourteenth amendment, provides, in part, that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const., amend. V. See also Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 10; 720 ILCS 5/3-4.

The double jeopardy clause protects against

(1) a second prosecution for the same offense following acquittal,

(2) a second prosecution for the same offense following conviction, and

(3) multiple punishments for the same offense.

However, the rules with regard to double jeopardy, however, should not be applied in a mechanical nature, especially if the situation is such that the interests the rules seek to protect are not endangered and a mechanical application would frustrate society’s interest in enforcing its criminal laws.

Lesser Included

Notably, double jeopardy clause did not prohibit the State from prosecuting lesser included offenses along with the more serious charges.

When a defendant pleads guilty to lesser included offenses he has not been exposed to conviction on the charges to which he pleaded not guilty, nor has the State had the opportunity to marshal its evidence and resources more than once or to hone its presentation of its case through a trial.

The acceptance of a guilty plea to lesser included offenses while charges on the greater offenses remain pending, moreover, has none of the implications of an implied acquittal which results from a verdict convicting a defendant on lesser included offenses rendered by a jury charged to consider both greater and lesser included offenses.

There simply isn’t any of the governmental overreaching that double jeopardy is supposed to prevent.

Shield Not A Sword

On the other hand, ending prosecution would deny the State its right to one full and fair opportunity to convict those who have violated its laws.

In this case, it is clear defendant was aware of the pending felony charges when he pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charges.

As the United State Supreme Court stated, a defendant should not be entitled to use the Double Jeopardy Clause as a sword to prevent the State from completing its prosecution on the remaining charges.

This case presents none of the interests double jeopardy seeks to protect.

Holding

Defendant was well aware of the pending felony charges when he pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charges. Additionally, the State has not marshaled its resources and evidence more than once or honed its presentation of the case through a trial on the misdemeanor charges.

Accordingly, the court concluded double jeopardy does not bar the State from pursuing the felony charges that were pending at the time defendant pleaded guilty to the lesser-included misdemeanor charges.

People v. Kavanaugh, 2016 IL App (3d) 150806 (December). Episode 276 (Duration 4:49)

Trial judge reversed for rescinding this SSS; you just can’t ignore the traffic accident and the stench of weed.

Facts

Trooper responds to the scene where Defendant had cut-off another driver forcing the other driver into a ditch.

When the trooper approached the defendant, he detected the odor of burnt cannabis. He asked defendant if she had anything illegal in the car, and she eventually admitted that she had cannabis. The trooper noted the odor of cannabis was “more freshly burnt” than stale.

Defendant also had a pipe and a grinder in her car.

The trooper testified that the cannabis was located under the seat.

Defendant told him she smoked cannabis approximately one week prior to the incident.

He was trained in detecting drug and cannabis use.

She Passed The Fields

The trooper did not observe that defendant had any difficulty walking when she exited her vehicle, and he did not smell cannabis on defendant’s breath.

He had defendant perform several field sobriety tests, including the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand tests. Trooper said she failed them all.

He also observed strong lack of convergence in defendant’s left eye indicative of drug impairment.

On video, the fields don’t actually look bad.

Illinois DUI Resource Page

Check out the Illinois DUI Resource Page

to learn more about DUI in Illinois.

 

Issue

The State argues that the trial court erred in granting the petition to rescind statutory summary suspension.

In the instant case, the issue was whether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that defendant was driving while under the influence of cannabis under section 2- 118.1(b)(2) of the Code (which only requires reasonable grounds).

Trial Court’s Findings

The trial court granted the rescission of the suspension. 

The trial court gave great deference to the fact that when the defendant was outside the vehicle, there was no odor of burnt cannabis on her person or otherwise on her breath. Further, the trial judge found the field sobriety tests were actually favorable to the defendant.

The trial court stated that it placed “significant weight” on the fact that the tests were performed on the shoulder of the interstate with heavy traffic passing within 10 to 15 feet of defendant.

The trial court also noted that there was a lack of evidence as to defendant’s demeanor, including whether she had red eyes or slurred speech. 

Analysis

First of all, the reviewing court said the trial court properly refused to consider the trooper’s testimony regarding the convergence test.

Nevertheless, the reviewing court found that, even accepting the trial court’s factual findings, the evidence was that there was reasonable grounds to believe defendant was driving while under the influence of cannabis.

Defendant admitted that she failed to check her blind spot before changing lanes, causing another vehicle to drive into the ditch. The trooper also detected a strong odor of burnt cannabis in defendant’s car and located a pipe, grinder, and cannabis under defendant’s front passenger seat.

Holding

The reviewing court concluded that the facts of defendant’s erratic driving, the strong odor of burnt cannabis in her vehicle, and the presence of cannabis and paraphernalia in her vehicle were sufficient “to lead a reasonably cautious person ...