 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Kindle1/14/2000
.
Act of May 5, 1999, ch. 180, § 1, 1999 Wash. Legis. Serv. (WESTLAW).
We conclude that the officers acted reasonably in surmising that the red beam of light that passed across their field of vision came from a laser-sighting device attached to a firearm. Consequently, their stop of defendant's motor vehicle for investigatory purposes was lawful.
Reversed.
FOR THE COURT:
Associate Justice
Dissenting
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.
JOHNSON, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the Court's determination that it was reasonable for the police officers to stop defendant based on the appearance of a red dot of light traveling across their field of vision. Officers must have a "reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person . . . has committed or is about to commit a crime " to make a limited investigatory seizure under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). See State v. Hollister, 165 Vt. 553, 553, 679 A.2d 883, 884 (1996) (mem.). In evaluating whether officers had a reasonable and articulable suspicion, we look at "the totality of the circumstances." See State v. Crandall, 162 Vt. 66, 70, 644 A.2d 320, 323 (1994). Taking the totality of circumstances into account here, I cannot find that the officers' suspicion that defendant's passenger was intentionally pointing a laser-sighted firearm at them was reasonable.
The officers were stopped at a red light and defendant drove his car across the intersection under a green light. Officer Blake testified that a small red light flashed across the windshield and the officer's face. Blake mentioned it to Officer Dumas, who said he had seen the same thing. While they had this discussion, defendant's car continued across the intersection and down the road, away from the officers' car. The officers then decided to follow the car, turned the corner after it, and activated their lights. They pulled the car over about a quarter-mile past the intersection. The State suggests that the officers could have suspected a number of crimes, including 13 V.S.A. § 4011 (aiming gun at another), or 13 V.S.A. § 1025 (recklessly endangering another person) (presumption of recklessness and danger exist where a person "knowingly points a firearm at or in the direction of another"). Both of these crimes require an element of intent implausible in these circumstances.
In making this stop, the officers leapt to a number of conclusions. First, they assumed that the red light was a laser-sight on a firearm, despite the fact that Officer Blake admitted being aware that laser pointers are widely available and used as everything from a business accessory to a toy. Next, they assumed that the chance encounter at the intersection somehow prompted defendant intentionally to aim a firearm at their car. Then, they must have assumed that the red light that flashed over their car was aimed precisely at their bodies, inside the darkened car (since the crimes alleged to have been suspected require the intentional direction of a firearm or other threat at a person). And despite the fact that the car continued down the road and away from them, the officers must have assumed that the occupants of that car had intentionally aimed a gun at them and then immediately grown disinterested and drove away.
While it might be reasonable to a
Page 1 2 3 4 Vermont DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|