 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Com. v. Shuck10/22/2004
le men. Janakakis-Kostun v. Janakakis, Ky.App., 6 S.W.3d 843, 852 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 811, 121 S.Ct. 32, 148 L.Ed.2d 13 (2000).
The record includes numerous pictures from multiple angles of the cracked windshield. The crack originates on the passenger side of the vehicle and at that point resembles two large asterisks, one situated toward the upper corner and the other at approximately a normally-seated passenger's eye-level position. From there, two primary fissures snake toward the driver's side directly across what would be a normally-seated driver's view. The fissures, while lengthy, are near-hairline. Pictures taken from inside the passenger compartment disclose minimal obstruction of the outside view.
While the cracks are clearly apparent, we conclude that, viewed objectively, it was not reasonable for Officer Wilson to have concluded that these particular cracks could have reasonably interfered with a driver's ability to see out of the windshield so as to interfere with the rights of other traffic or endanger public safety. The pictures disclose that the cracks are not of sufficient gravity to induce this suspicion. Hence, the trial court's findings to that effect were clearly erroneous.
With regard to the district court's finding that the cracks could result in a risk of shattering the windshield into the passenger compartment, again, based upon the relatively de minimis nature of the cracks, this is not a reasonable conclusion. Further, the only evidence supporting this hypothesis was Officer Wilson's testimony, and no foundation was laid to demonstrate that Officer Wilson had the required knowledge or expertise to testify regarding this issue. This finding was, likewise, clearly erroneous.
In summary, the finding of the district court that Officer Wilson had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Shuck's vehicle based upon the supposition that the cracked windshield was a violation of Kentucky law was clearly erroneous. The cracked windshield is patently not a violation of KRS 189.020. If follows that Officer Wilson could not have had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that it was.
*6 Shuck also argues that the fruits of the police stop should be suppressed on the basis that KRS 189.020 is void for vagueness. Our disposition of the case moots this argument.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court is affirmed.
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.
|
|