 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Fontenot7/8/1999
The Williamson County Grand Jury indicted the defendant, Ronald R. Fontenot, for three counts of driving under the influence . The trial court found that the initial traffic stop was invalid and thus granted Fontenot's motion to suppress and dismissed the state's case. The state appeals, alleging that the arresting officer conducted a legitimate investigatory stop based on reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity, and, therefore, the trial court should have denied the motion to suppress. We AFFIRM the trial court's judgment.
BACKGROUND
Sergeant Ball of the Williamson County Sheriff's Department followed the defendant's vehicle for some distance on Lewisburg Pike. He observed the defendant execute a left-hand turn onto Wilhoite Road, a dead-end road. Ball testified that he had no particular reason for following the defendant's vehicle, but he believed the defendant may have braked heavily when making this turn. Ball stopped his vehicle and waited several minutes before entering Wilhoite. Ball met the defendant as he was returning to Lewisburg Pike, approximately 100 yards from the intersection. Ball turned around and, on reaching Lewisburg Pike, observed that the defendant's vehicle had resumed its original direction of travel on that roadway. Ball observed the vehicle's "taillights in the [unspecified] distance." Ball pursued the vehicle, believing that the defendant might be fleeing, and on his reaching the vehicle he activated his blue lights. The defendant promptly pulled over and stopped his vehicle. Ball testified that during this entire incident he observed no traffic violations.
Based on investigation subsequent to the stop, including Ball's observation of an odor consistent with consumption of alcohol on or about the defendant, the defendant's red eyes, the defendant's statements and his performance of field sobriety tests, Ball arrested the defendant for driving under the influence . The defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence acquired after the traffic stop. At the subsequent suppression hearing, the trial court noted that one's accelerating from an intersection does not necessarily constitute fleeing and that the defendant promptly pulled over and stopped when Ball activated his blue lights. The trial court found "no articulable facts" to support the stop, granted the defendant's motion, and dismissed the case. The state appeals, arguing that Ball legitimately stopped the vehicle pursuant to an investigation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial court's determination of fact at a suppression hearing "is presumptively correct on appeal." State v. Stephenson, 878 S.W.2d 530, 544 (Tenn. 1994). This Court upholds a trial court's decision "unless the evidence in the record preponderates against the finding." State v. Henning, 975 S.W.2d 290, 299 (Tenn. 1998). "Questions of credibility of witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, and resolution of conflicts in the evidence are matters entrusted to the trial Judge as the trier of fact." Id. "The party prevailing in the trial court is entitled to the strongest view of the evidence, as well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from the evidence." Id.; see also State v. Curtis, 964 S.W.2d 604, 608 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (The state, appealing a trial court's granting a motion to suppress, must show this Court that the evidence in the record preponderates against the trial court's findings of fact.). This Court does review de novo the trial court's application of law. See State v. Yeager, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997).
ANALYSIS
The sole issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred by finding that Ball lac
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|