 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Remy4/17/1998
olves an assault against a family or household member, as defined in Chapter 21 of Title 15, or a child of such person." As the former spouse of Ms. Palmer, the victim here met the definition of a "household member" under 15 V.S.A. Section 1101(2) ("persons who have lived together in a sexual relationship"). Based upon the information supplied to the officer earlier that day, the officer had probable cause to believe an assault against a household member had occurred, and therefore was authorized to arrest under V.R.Cr.P. 3(a). See State v. Phillips, 140 Vt. 210, 217, 436, A.2d 746, 750 (1981) ("For probable cause to exist in a warrantless arrest situation, it is necessary that some facts substantiating the commission of an alleged crime be communicated to the arresting officer or to an officer with whom he is in communication.").
Clothed with the authority to arrest Ms. Palmer, Officer Rowland was entitled, indeed was required, under V.R.Cr.P. 3(c)(1) to stop the van in which she and defendant were riding to issue a citation or, if one of the exceptions in 3(c)(2) applied, to make an arrest. V.R.Cr.P. 3(c)(1). Having lawfully stopped and detained defendant, and having detected clear signs of intoxication, the officer was then authorized to investigate further "`in order to confirm or negate his suspicions regarding probable cause to arrest'" for DUI. State v. Caron, 155 Vt. 492, 500, 586 A.2d 1127, 1132 (1990) (quoting State v. Jewett, 148 Vt. 324, 330, 532 A.2d 958, 961 (1986)). Thus, both the stop and the subsequent investigation were justified under the circumstances.
Accordingly, we hold that the motion to suppress was properly denied. In view of our holding, we need not address the trial court's alternative ruling that the officer had a reasonable suspicion to stop defendant based upon the report that she was intoxicated.
Affirmed.
|