 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Steen12/7/2004
ne."
Whether a particularized suspicion exists is a question of fact dependent on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the investigative stop. Officer Lichte, at approximately 1:10 a.m., observed Steen turn from Broadway into the outside eastbound lane rather than the inner closest lane of Main Street, swerve back to the center of both lanes and straddle both eastbound lanes. After a review of the record, we conclude the Municipal Court and the District Court correctly determined the evidence presented was enough for Officer Lichte to suspect Steen had engaged in wrongdoing-violating § 61-8-333, MCAwhich was enough to justify the investigatory stop.
We note that Steen also argues Officer Lichte misunderstood the statutes, and as a result, Officer Lichte could not have had a particularized suspicion to stop Steen. However, to have "a particularized suspicion does not require certainty on the part of the law enforcement officer." Farabee , 19. We disagree with Steen because Officer Lichte observed Steen making a wide turn in violation of § 61-8-333(1)(b), MCA, thus we conclude Officer Lichte correctly understood Steen failed to correctly make the left hand turn to the inside lane, as it was practicable to do so.
Further, Steen maintains he could move into either lane of travel eastbound without violating § 61-8-333(1)(b), MCA, because other traffic would not be affected by his movement pursuant to § 61-8-336(1), MCA. However, we agree with the State that this argument renders the last sentence of § 61-8-333(1)(b), MCA, superfluous by eliminating the default requirement that left turns be made to the inside lane of travel, unless this is impracticable. "We are required to avoid any statutory interpretation that renders any sections of the statute superfluous and does not give effect to all the words used." State v. Berger (1993), 259 Mont. 364, 367, 856 P.2d 552, 554. Because we conclude the evidence in this case demonstrates a proper turn to the inside lane was practicable, it is not necessary to analyze this argument.
Steen also points us to State v. Lafferty , 1998 MT 247, 291 Mont. 157, 967 P.2d 363, and Morris v. State , 2001 MT 13, 304 Mont. 114, 18 P.3d 1003, to support his position that his improper turn does not constitute "erratic driving." However, because we conclude Officer Lichte had enough particularized suspicion to justify a traffic stop based on Steen's illegal left hand turn alone, and not the rest of his erratic driving, we decline to address this argument.
The District Court's finding that Officer Lichte had a particularized suspicion to justify the investigatory stop on Steen was not in error and its conclusion to deny Steen's motion to suppress evidence was correct. Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|