¶ 27 In reviewing the circuit court's denial of defendant's petition to rescind his statutory summary suspension, we apply a two-part standard of review. People v. Wear , 229 Ill. 2d 545, 561, 323 Ill.Dec. 359, 893 N.E.2d 631 (2008). We give great deference to the circuit court's factual findings, including any inferences drawn therefrom, reversing those findings only where they are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 19 This court has equated the "reasonable grounds" standard with the probable cause standard applied in the context of search and seizure under the fourth amendment. People v. Wear , 229 Ill.2d 545, 560, 563, 323 Ill.Dec. 359, 893 N.E.2d 631 (2008). Under this standard, probable cause exists when the facts known to the officer at the time are sufficient to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that the arrestee has committed a crime, based on the totality of the circumstances.
People v. Hacker , 388 Ill.App.3d 346, 350, 327 Ill.Dec. 671, 902 N.E.2d 792 (2009). "In People v. Wear , 229 Ill.2d 545, 561–62, [323 Ill.Dec. 359, 893 N.E.2d 631] * * * (2008), the supreme court held that the reviewing court will defer to factual findings but will review de novo the ultimate determination of whether the petition to rescind should be granted." Id .
The chief evil against which the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution is directed is the physical entry into the home. People v. Wear , 229 Ill.2d 545, 562, 323 Ill.Dec. 359, 893 N.E.2d 631 (2008). To protect against the unjustified entry by law enforcement into the home, the fourth amendment has "drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house."
In the case of an individual's home, a warrantless intrusion is presumed to be unreasonable. People v. Wear, 229 Ill. 2d 545, 562 (2008). ¶ 21 Standing
A hearing on a petition to rescind a summary suspension is a civil proceeding in which the motorist bears the burden of proof. People v. Wear, 229 Ill.2d 545, 559-60 (2008) (abrogated on other grounds by Lange v. California, 594 U.S., 141 S.Ct. 2011 (2021)). If the motorist establishes a prima facie case for rescission, the burden then shifts to the State to present evidence justifying the suspension.
The standard of review is the same for an appeal from a ruling on a petition to rescind. People v. Wear, 229 Ill.2d 545, 561, 323 Ill.Dec. 359, 893 N.E.2d 631 (2008). ¶ 26 We turn first to the propriety of the trial court's ruling regarding the motion.
The standard of review is the same for an appeal from a ruling on a petition to rescind. People v. Wear, 229 Ill. 2d 545, 561 (2008). ¶ 27 We turn first to the propriety of the trial court's ruling regarding the motion. The chief evil against which the fourth amendment is directed is the entry into the home.
This suspension may be rescinded if the driver demonstrates that the police officer had no reasonable grounds to believe the person was driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. 625 ILCS 5/2-118.1(b)(2) (West 2010). Illinois courts utilize probable cause analysis under the Fourth Amendment to determine if an officer had reasonable grounds to arrest for DUI. People v. Wear, 229 Ill. 2d 545, 560 (2008). In a civil proceeding to rescind the statutory summary suspension, the driver bears the burden of proof.
In reviewing a ruling on a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, this court applies a two-part standard of review. People v. Wear, 229 Ill. 2d 545, 561 (2008); People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 542 (2006). "While we accord great deference to the trial court's factual findings, and will reverse those findings only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence, we review de novo the court's ultimate ruling on a motion to suppress involving probable cause."