 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Steen12/7/2004
On June 8, 2002, at approximately 1:10 a.m., Bozeman Police Officer Doug Lichte (Officer Lichte) was traveling east on Main Street in Bozeman, Montana, when he observed a full-size pickup make a wide left hand turn at the intersection of Broadway and Main Street, in violation of § 61-8-333(1)(b), MCA (2001). Broadway is a two lane roadway with one lane for northbound travel and another lane for southbound travel. Main Street is a four lane arterial street with two lanes for eastbound traffic and two lanes for westbound traffic. The intersection of Broadway and Main Street is not perpendicular, and is in fact, slightly acute. Steen turned left from the proper lane of Broadway into the outside eastbound lane of Main Street rather than the inner closest lane, thereby violating § 61-8-333(1)(b), MCA (2001). After making the turn, Steen swerved to straddle the center of both eastbound lanes. After witnessing the pickup travel for a period of approximately five seconds, Officer Lichte stopped Steen. Officer Lichte's investigation ultimately led him to charge Steen with DUI.
Steen submitted a Brief in Support of Motion to Suppress in Municipal Court to dismiss all evidence derived from his stop by Officer Lichte, which the Municipal Court denied after conducting a hearing. Steen pled guilty to DUI and reserved his right to appeal from the denial of the motion. The District Court affirmed the Municipal Court in its denial of Steen's motion. We affirm the District Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence to determine whether the court's finding that the officer involved had a particularized suspicion to justify the investigatory stop is clearly erroneous. State v. Farabee , 2000 MT 265, 11, 302 Mont. 29, 11, 22 P.3d 175, 11. We review a district court's conclusions of law regarding a motion to suppress evidence to determine whether the district court's interpretation of the law was correct. Farabee , 11.
DISCUSSION
Whether the District Court erred when it denied Steen's motion to suppress evidence on the basis that the police officer did not have particularized suspicion to justify a traffic stop.
Steen contends the District Court erred when it denied his Motion to Suppress because Officer Lichte did not have the particularized suspicion that Steen was committing an offense when he turned left from Broadway onto Main Street. To determine particularized suspicion to justify an investigative stop, the State must show: (1) objective data from which an experienced officer could make certain inferences, and (2) a resulting suspicion that the occupant of the vehicle in question is or has been engaged in some wrongdoing. Moore v. State , 2002 MT 315, 10, 313 Mont. 126, 10, 61 P.3d 746, 10. "Whether a particularized suspicion exists is a question of fact dependent on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the investigative stop." Moore , 10.
Section 61-8-336, MCA (2001), outlines the law for turning movements and required signals. The pertinent part, as it stood in 2001 when Steen was stopped, states:
(1) No person shall turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in proper position upon the roadway as required by 61-8-333 . . . or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety. No person shall so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided in the event any other traffic may be affected by such movement. Section 61-8-333, MCA, as it stood in 2001 when Steen was stopped, provides for the required position and met
Page 1 2 3 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|