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. Officers found Aloisio, who was bleeding, near the crash scene. The circuit court suppressed evidence obtained as a result of his arrest after finding that the State had not established probable cause. On reconsideration, the court narrowed that ruling: it declined to suppress a firearm found near Aloisio but suppressed his hospital blood draw.
The State filed a timely reconsideration motion, which the circuit court resolved on December 17, 2024. Rather than appeal within 30 days of that ruling, the State filed a January 14, 2025 motion requesting an attenuation hearing on the blood draw. The circuit court permitted the hearing but ultimately ruled that the draw was not sufficiently attenuated from the unlawful arrest, notwithstanding evidence that hospital staff ordered it during medical treatment.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court did not reach the merits of whether Aloisio established a prima facie case for suppression or whether the hospital blood draw was attenuated from the unlawful arrest. It held that the State’s attenuation motion was an impermissible successive postjudgment motion.
Under the Taylor rule, attenuation is part of the suppression issue and cannot be treated as a separate question to be raised after the time for appealing the suppression ruling has expired. The State’s first reconsideration motion extended its appeal deadline only until January 16, 2025. Its later attenuation motion did not toll that deadline, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. The appellate court therefore vacated the orders granting the attenuation hearing and denying the State’s motion, and ordered the January 14 motion dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- An attenuation argument is part of the suppression question and must be raised in the original suppression proceedings, a timely reconsideration motion, or a timely appeal.
- A successive postjudgment motion cannot extend the time to appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 606(b).
- When a trial court lacks jurisdiction over a successive postjudgment motion, its resulting orders are void and should be vacated rather than left in place through dismissal of the appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces a strict procedural limit on the State’s ability to relitigate suppression rulings. Prosecutors must raise attenuation together with their suppression arguments or preserve the issue through a timely appeal; labeling the request as a separate hearing will not revive an expired appellate deadline.
The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances Rule 23(e)(1) permits.