 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike v. State9/20/1988
The opinion of the court was delivered by: BUSSEY, Judge.
The appellant, Maggie Cade Mike a/k/a Maggie Eugene Cade, was convicted in the District Court of Murray County Case No. CRF-85-63 of Driving While Intoxicated, Second Offense, in violation of 47 O.S.Supp. 1985 § 11-902 [47-11-902](C). He was sentenced to three (3) years' imprisonment; fined $500.00; assessed costs and payment to Victims' Compensation Fund after release, and he appeals.
The manager of a donut shop in Sulpher, Oklahoma, testified that in the late morning hours of November, 1985, she had just sold all her donuts and closed her shop when a car drove up and parked near the front door. A lady got out of the passenger side and came inside. She was told that the shop was closed and started to leave when a man got out of the same car from the driver's side, staggered to the door, and demanded that the store be opened so he could buy donuts. After a brief, but heated exchange at the door, the man staggered back to his car, got in, and drove away on the wrong side of the road. Because the man smelled strongly of alcohol and because he was driving on the wrong side of the road as he left, the shop manager immediately called the police and reported the incident, giving a general description of the driver and the car. Approximately ten minutes later, the manager saw the same car returning, travelling "very fast." As the car passed the shop, a police car pulled into the parking lot, responding to the managers' telephone call. The manager showed the officer where the car had gone and the officer followed. At trial, she positively identified the appellant as the driver of the car.
Responding to the police dispatcher's report, a patrol officer observed the appellant's car a short distance from the donut shop. The car was being driven on the proper side of the road, slightly under the posted speed limit. The officer did not observe any traffic violations.
The patrolman followed the appellant a short distance until he pulled into a local convenience store. The officer pulled in behind the appellant and watched as he got out of the car and, staggering slightly, enter the convenience store. After calling the dispatcher to confirm the description of the suspect, the officer approached the appellant as he left the store with the twelve pack of beer he had purchased. The officer spoke to the appellant and noticed that, in addition to staggering, his eyes were bloodshot and glossy, his speech was slurred, and he smelled strongly of alcohol. Based on these observations, the officer placed the appellant under arrest.
Paraphrased, the appellant's first assignment of error is that there was insufficient probable cause to support this warrantless arrest. In this assignment, appellant goes on to state that no probable cause existed because the arresting officer had not observed the appellant "commit any moving violations or operating his car in a manner so as to be a traffic hazard."
The facts of this case show that, initially, the patrolman was simply making a reasonable inquiry of a person brought to his knowledge under circumstances suggesting a crime had been or was about to be committed. See, e.g., Stewart v. State, 395 P.2d 346 (Okl.Cr. 1964). The rule that probable cause exists when there are facts within the officer's knowledge sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the subject has committed an offense, is elementary. See, e.g., Cooks v. State, 699 P.2d 653 (Okl.Cr. 1985); Greene v. State, 508 P.2d 1095 (Okl.Cr. 1973). At the time of the arrest in question, the personal observations of the officer amply meet this
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|