 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Minot v. Johnson12/22/1999
Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Glenn Dill III, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
[ ] The City of Minot appeals from the trial court's suppression order. We affirm.
[ ] On March 27, 1999, Senior Patrolman George Saltsman was performing security checks around Cathy's Cafe and Nola's Lounge in Minot, North Dakota. Patrolman Saltsman knew Nola's Lounge, Cathy's Cafe, and the nearby Moose Club had been burglarized in the past. The last burglary report at Nola's Lounge was on December 23, 1998, three months earlier.
[ ] At approximately 4:13 a.m., Patrolman Saltsman observed Timothy Johnson turn off Burdick Expressway, enter the parking lot at Nola's Lounge, drive into a sparsely lit area behind the lounge, and exit the parking lot without stopping. Patrolman Saltsman stopped Johnson approximately three blocks later to ask for identification. Johnson was subsequently charged with DUI.
[ ] On May 21, 1999, Johnson moved to suppress evidence gained from the investigatory stop. On June 3, 1999, the trial court granted the motion, concluding the "officer did not articulate any observation of any illegal activity." The City moved for reconsideration. The trial court denied the City's motion. The City appeals.
[ ] An appeal of an order granting the suppression of evidence is allowed under N.D.C.C. § 29-28-07(5). Our standard of review is well documented in North Dakota case law.
"`We affirm a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress unless, after resolving conflicting evidence in favor of affirmance, we conclude there is insufficient competent evidence to support the decision, or unless we conclude the decision goes against the manifest weight of the evidence.'" State v. Kenner, 1997 ND 1, 7, 559 N.W.2d 538 (quoting State v. Hawley, 540 N.W.2d 390, 392 (N.D. 1995)). This standard of review accords great deference to the trial court's decision and recognizes the importance of the opportunity to assess the credibility of the witness. Id. . . . The ultimate conclusion of whether the facts support a reasonable and articulable suspicion is a fully reviewable question of law. Id.
In order to legally stop a moving vehicle for an investigation, an officer must have a reasonable and articulable suspicion the motorist has violated or is violating the law. Kenner, 1997 ND 1, 8, 559 N.W.2d 538. This reasonable suspicion standard is less stringent than probable cause, but does require more than a "mere hunch." See id. at 8, 10; State v. Jesfjeld, 1997 ND 23, 8, 559 N.W.2d 543. In determining whether an investigative stop is valid, we use an objective standard and look to the totality of the circumstances. State v. Ova, 539 N.W.2d 857, 859 (N.D. 1995). Reasonable suspicion to justify a stop exists when "a reasonable person in the officer's position would be justified by some objective manifestation to suspect potential criminal activity." Id.
We do not require an officer to isolate single factors which signal a potential violation of the law; but instead, "officers are to assess the situation as it unfolds and, based upon inferences and deductions drawn from their experience and training, make the determination whether all of the circumstances viewed together create a reasonable suspicion of potential criminal activity." Id. When assessing reasonableness, we consider inferences and deductions an investigating officer would make which may elude a layperson. Kenner, 1997 ND 1, 8, 559 N.W.2d 538.
City of Fargo v. Ovind, 1998 ND 69, 6, 8-9, 575 N.W.2d 901.
[ ] The City argues the trial court incorrectly applied a probable cause stand
Page 1 2 3 4 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|