 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. JONES10/12/1992
Appellant, Ina L. Jones was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. Her motion to suppress the evidence was sustained and the state has appealed pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 36.10(a) and 16.2(d).
At the suppression hearing arresting officers testified that they observed a vehicle spin its tires as it left an area under surveillance. The vehicle's tires squealed two more times and the car skidded slightly. Relying on a Blytheville traffic ordinance,
No. 1010, the police stopped the motorist, appellant Ina Jones, and asked permission to search her vehicle. Mrs. Jones's purse contained cocaine and a loaded .25 calibre automatic pistol.
At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court offered these comments:
The question that comes up is whether or not that spinning your wheels must also include a disregard for persons, property, traffic controls and conditions then present. This was apparently late at night, wasn't anybody present but the police officer. I hardly see how it could indicate a disregard for persons, property, traffic controls and conditions then present. I am going to rule that the stop was not called for and that it was based only on a suspicion that she was involved leaving a high crime area driving a car that the police officer suspected was used for carrying narcotics, and I am going to say that the stop was illegal.
In the colloquy between court and counsel that followed the ruling, counsel for the state asked for specific findings as to whether Mrs. Jones had consented to the search:
The Court: I am not getting as far as that. I would say that she did, if you want a finding of facts, but that was after the illegal stop and is void, in my opinion.
Counsel for the state then asked "whether or not the officer's testimony was credible with regards to what led up to his stopping her."
The Court: If I can clarify my ruling, I am not going as far as ruling that she did skid or didn't skid. What I am ruling is, that the testimony by the officer who stopped her did not fulfill the requirements of Section One of the ordinance 1010, as there was no testimony whatsoever that there was a disregard for persons, property, traffic controls and conditions then present; and whether she skidded or whether she didn't skid, the actions without those things, or one of those things being present, was not a proper reason for the officer to stop her.
On appeal, the state submits the question presented is whether the trial court correctly interpreted the ordinance in light
of his findings, rather than a problem of search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
The ordinance reads:
Section 1. Hazardous driving is defined as the operation of a motor vehicle upon the streets, highways, alleys, public parking lots, private parking lots or upon private property within the city limits of Blytheville, Arkansas, in such a manner as to indicate a disregard for persons, property, traffic controls and conditions then present. Hazardous driving includes, but is not limited, to the following:
Starting or stopping a vehicle in such a manner that the tires of the motor vehicle lose traction and the vehicle slides from side to side, swerves, or otherwise deviates from its normal direct course or direction of travel . . . .
Application of power or accelerating a vehicle unnecessarily so as to cause it to spin, on the surface it is operating, producing noise and/or skidding or sliding.
The ordinance, as we read it, defines hazardous driving as driving which indicates a disregard for persons, property, traffic controls and
Page 1 2 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|