 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Castro v. State4/8/1998
wo men had just led the police on a dangerous, high-speed chase. Judge Pengilly also ruled that, within minutes of the handcuffing, the police obtained probable cause to arrest Castro based on Powell's statement that Castro had been driving and on the bartender's report, relayed through the dispatcher, that the driver of the car had been a Hispanic male.
On appeal, Castro renews his argument that the officers' act of handcuffing him constituted an arrest without probable cause. Castro concedes that the police had ample reason to conduct an investigative stop of the vehicle and its occupants, but he argues that there was no probable cause to arrest him for driving while intoxicated (or any other crime) until the police had information identifying him as the driver.
Under the facts of Castro's case, it was obvious to the officers on the scene that the driver of the car had committed a crime. And, after the police realized that Castro was lying about a third man having been in the car, it was obvious that the driver of the car was either Castro or his companion, Powell. There is some authority to support the proposition that, in these circumstances, the police had probable cause to arrest both Castro and Powell. See Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (3rd ed. 1996), § 3.2(e), Vol. 2, pp. 64-68. But even if the police could make no arrest until they had some reason to believe it more likely that one man or the other was the driver, Castro is still not entitled to suppression of any evidence.
First, we agree with Judge Pengilly that the officers' decision to handcuff Castro and Powell was a permissible facet of the investigative stop. The two men had just led the police on a dangerous, high-speed chase. Because of this, the officers could reasonably conclude that, with the car now disabled, the two men might try to flee on foot. The circumstances also gave the officers reason to believe that the men's flight might have been motivated by something more substantial than their fear of a traffic arrest - thus justifying the officers in taking greater precautions for their safety. For these reasons, the officers' action of handcuffing the two men was justifiable as part of the investigative stop, and it did not transform that stop into an arrest. See Howard v. State, 664 P.2d 603, 608-611 (Alaska App. 1983) (officers' decision to approach a suspect with drawn guns and to handcuff the suspect do not necessarily turn an investigative stop into an arrest).
Second, even if the officers' use of handcuffs constituted an excessive use of force, thus prematurely turning the investigative stop into an arrest, this would not necessarily entitle Castro to suppression of any evidence. Castro concedes that the officers had sufficient justification to perform the investigative stop. Because of this, Castro is entitled to suppression of evidence only if he can show that the challenged evidence stemmed peculiarly from the officers' decision to handcuff him, as opposed to stemming from the lawful investigatory stop itself. Compare Martin v. State, 623 P.2d 1225, 1226-27 (Alaska 1981), and State v. Sundberg, 611 P.2d 44, 50-53 (Alaska 1980) (both holding that officers' use of excessive force in making an arrest does not warrant suppression of evidence stemming from an otherwise valid arrest).
The facts of this case allow no credible argument that the officers would have let Castro and Powell leave before they checked with their dispatcher regarding the details of the initial report. When the officers spoke to the dispatcher, they learned that an eyewitness had reported that the car was being driven by a Hispanic male. This information gave the offi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|