 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Fontenot7/8/1999
ked reasonable suspicion supported by specific and articulable facts such that warranted the investigatory stop of the defendant and therefore erred by granting the defendant's motion to suppress and dismissing the state's case.
"Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a `seizure' within the meaning of [the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution]." Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979). Even absent probable cause, a warrantless stop may be a valid investigative procedure if the police officer has reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that a criminal offense has been or is about to be committed. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968); State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 632 (Tenn. 1997). However, a warrantless stop is presumptively unreasonable. See Simpson, 968 S.W.2d at 780. In the instant case, Ball testified that he observed no violations by the defendant prior to the stop. Further, the record does not indicate that Ball either had received reliable information that the defendant had, or was about to, commit an offense, cf. State v. Banner, 685 S.W.2d 298 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984), or was aware of an outstanding capias for the defendant's arrest, cf. State v. Watkins, 827 S.W.2d 293 (Tenn. 1992).
The record submitted does not provide the requisite preponderance of evidence for this Court's interfering with the trial court's suppressing the evidence. See Curtis, 964 S.W.2d at 608. Evidence from an invalid traffic stop is subject to suppression. See State v. Norwood, 938 S.W.2d 23, 26 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). The trial court did not erroneously grant the defendant's motion. Further, the state's evidence originated solely from investigation after the stop, and without this evidence the record is void of any evidence against the defendant. Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed the case. This issue is without merit.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the trial court's judgment.
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, Judge
CONCUR: DAVID H. WELLES, Judge JOE G. RILEY, Judge
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|