 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jones v. State2/6/2003
Following a jury trial, Joseph Shannon Jones appeals his conviction for driving under the influence (OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1)) and improper backing (OCGA § 40-6-240), claiming that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the traffic stop because the police officer lacked a valid reason to stop him; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for improper backing; and (3) the roadblock was illegal. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
1. Jones contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress, arguing that he was stopped without the prerequisite reasonable articulable suspicion. We disagree, finding that Jones's unusual and illegal maneuver, apparently taken to avoid a roadblock, provided sufficient evidence to justify the police officer's suspicion of criminal activity.
When reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress, this court's responsibility is to ensure that there was a substantial basis for the decision. The evidence is construed most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment, and the trial court's findings on disputed facts and credibility are adopted unless they are clearly erroneous. Further, since the trial court sits as the trier of fact, its findings are analogous to a jury verdict and will not be disturbed if there is any evidence to support them. State v. Ruiz.
Viewed in the proper light, the record shows that on January 11, 2002, Atlanta police officer Randy Sheen was working a roadblock on Juniper Street at the corner of 5th Street. Officer Sheen's job was to stay in his patrol car and watch for vehicles trying to avoid or run through the roadblock. Juniper Street is a one-way street heading south. The roadblock was positioned at the bottom of a hill, so that traffic approaching from the north would crest the hill and first observe the roadblock just after crossing 6th Street. At 3:56 a.m., Sheen observed Jones, driving passenger Emily Patterson's Volvo, crest the hill, come to an abrupt stop, back up the one-way street uphill ten to fifteen yards into the 6th Street intersection, and turn left. Sheen immediately pursued Jones's vehicle onto 6th Street, pulling him over. After Jones admitted drinking and after he failed several field sobriety tests, Sheen arrested him for DUI - less safe driver. Sheen testified that he stopped Jones because "he came to a sudden stop below the crest of the hill, which is where we were conducting a roadblock." and "he was backing up a hill crest in what I believe to be an unsafe manner." Sheen also testified that he thought Jones was trying to avoid the roadblock.
An officer may conduct a brief investigative stop of a vehicle if the stop is justified by "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion." Terry v. Ohio. A court must consider whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the police officer had "a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity." United States v. Cortez. However, the stop of a vehicle is also authorized merely if the officer observed a traffic offense. Roberts v. State. See Whren v. United States.
"Further, an officer's honest belief that a traffic violation has been committed in his presence, even if ultimately proven incorrect, may nevertheless demonstrate the existence of at least an articulable suspicion and reasonable grounds for the stop." Castillo v. State. In judging the officer's honest belief, a court should determine whether the officer's "motives and actions at the time and under all the circumstances, including the nature of the of
Page 1 2 3 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|