 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Com. v. Shuck10/22/2004
The Commonwealth of Kentucky appeals from an opinion and order of the Fayette Circuit Court suppressing evidence discovered following a police stop of Steven Shucks (Shuck) pickup truck. The police stop was initiated solely on the basis that the vehicle had a cracked windshield. The circuit courts opinion and order reversed a ruling of the Fayette District Court denying Shucks motion to suppress the evidence discovered as a result of the stop. We subsequently accepted discretionary review. While, unlike the circuit court, we conclude that a cracked windshield may result in a violation of Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 189.020, we further conclude that the crack in Shucks windshield was not of sufficient gravity so as to create a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was in violation of the statute. We accordingly affirm the opinion and order of the circuit court.
On June 17, 2001, Sergeant Roy Wilson of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Police Department observed Shuck driving his pickup truck in Jacobson Park, in Fayette County, Kentucky. According to Officer Wilson, Shuck was driving his pickup truck toward his vehicle and he observed that the front windshield of Shuck's vehicle was cracked. The crack originated on the passenger side of the vehicle and fissured across the windshield to the driver's side. Wilson testified at the suppression hearing that he believed the crack could have impaired the driver's view through that part of the windshield and he elected to stop the vehicle based upon this belief.
Shuck's license was suspended because of a prior driving under the influence conviction, and Sergeant Wilson charged and arrested him for driving on a suspended license. In addition, Officer Wilson charged Shuck with operating an uninsured motor vehicle; with two counts of failure to use seat belt; and with possession of alcoholic beverages in a public park. As a result of the cracked windshield, Officer Wilson charged Shuck with violating KRS 189.110, which contains various provisions relating to obstructed windshields.
On August 20, 2001, Shuck filed a motion in Fayette District Court to suppress the fruits of the June 17, 2001, stop on the basis that Sergeant Wilson did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that Shuck had committed any offense prior to pulling him over, and that, as a result, the subsequent stop, arrest, and search were illegal.
In its response to the motion, the Commonwealth defended the stop primarily upon the basis that the cracked windshield was a violation of KRS 189.020, a statute captioned "Equipment of vehicle not to be nuisance or menace," rather than KRS 189.110, the statute identified by Officer Wilson on the original citation.
On October 1, 2001, a hearing was held on Shuck's motion to suppress pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.78. On October 15, 2001, the district court entered an order denying the suppression motion on the basis that Officer Wilson had a reasonable and articulable suspicion supporting his decision to stop Shuck's vehicle, namely, that the cracked windshield could impair the vision of the driver and, further, could increase the likelihood that the windshield glass could shatter into the passenger compartment in the event the windshield were struck by a foreign object, thereby presenting a danger to the vehicle's occupants.
*2 Shuck subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to driving on a suspended license and to driving an uninsured vehicle. The plea reserved for appeal the legality of the stop by Officer Wilson and the issue of whether KRS 189.110 and 189.020 are void for vagueness. [FN1]
FN1. On December 6, 2001, Shuck filed a motion in Fayette District Court to declare KRS 189.110 and KRS 189.020 void for vagueness. The offic
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|