 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Clark1/29/1999
The defendant was charged by indictment with driving while under the influence (DUI), reckless driving, refusing to submit to a blood alcohol test, and driving on a revoked license. He moved to dismiss the charges on the basis that the police authorities made an unlawful traffic stop. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the indictment. The State now appeals. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly dismissed the indictment. We remand the case for further findings from the trial court.
On August 31, 1997, Officer Shane Dortch of the Clarksville Police Department received a radio dispatch call to respond to the area of Five Points Market. Apparently, a citizen had complained to the police department that four "very intoxicated" people were in a 1978 Oldsmobile vehicle near the store. When Officer Dortch responded to the radio dispatch call, he saw the Oldsmobile in the store parking lot. As the Oldsmobile left the store parking lot, Officer Dortch followed it. Approximately two-tenths of one mile away, Officer Dortch stopped the Oldsmobile and arrested the defendant, who was driving. On the arrest warrant, the only reason Officer Dortch gave for stopping the defendant's car was that a complaint of four "very intoxicated" individuals in a 1978 Oldsmobile had been received.
At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Officer Dortch testified that after he stopped the defendant's car, he arrested the defendant because he smelled strongly of alcohol and was unsteady on his feet. When asked why he decided to stop the Oldsmobile in the first place, Officer Dortch replied that he had observed the defendant commit two traffic violations---i.e., driving twenty-four to twenty-six miles per hour in a twenty-mile-per-hour zone and turning right onto another street without signaling---and that he had suspected the defendant of DUI because of the complaint received. When asked why the warrant reflected only that the defendant was arrested based on a citizen's complaint, he replied that he only put on the warrant what he believed was necessary for establishing probable cause. Officer Dortch admitted that he had never written a speeding ticket for somebody driving four to six miles over the speed limit. He also admitted that had it not been for the radio broadcast he received from dispatch, he probably would not have stopped the defendant's car since he was not in the area at the time.
Following arguments, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, stating as follows:
A police officer may make an investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by specific and articulable facts that a criminal offense has been or is about to be committed.
An investigatory stop may be based upon information contained in a police radio broadcast issued by a law enforcement agency. It is not necessary that the officer making the investigatory stop have personal knowledge of the facts contained in the radio broadcast, but the prosecution does have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the person or agency that's responsible for the broadcast did have specific and articulable facts that a criminal offense had been or was about to be committed.
In order to determine whether a police officer's reasonable suspicion is supported by specific and articulable facts, the Court must consider the totality of the circumstances. Based on the evidence before me, the Court finds that Officer Dortch received a radio broadcast from his dispatch, that there was a specific vehicle with four occupants in it who were intoxicated.
He went to the
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|