 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dunalp v. State12/13/2002
id" and threw the car key at him, hitting him in the chest. As Dunlap continued his diatribe, Bergman noted that there was a strong odor of alcohol about him and that his speech was slurred. Bergman ordered Dunlap out of the Ranger, handcuffed him, placed him in the police car and drove him back to the station for a breath test. Bergman testified that he did not do any field testing because Dunlap had been combative when he was taken into custody.
(7) On cross examination, Bergman agreed that Dunlap's vehicle did not go into the shoulder as it traveled along Old Landing Road and that there was no center line marked on that portion of the road where Bergman testified he saw Dunlap's vehicle weaving back and forth. At the end of the suppression hearing, counsel for Dunlap argued that the traffic stop was illegal because there was no reasonable basis for Patrolman Bergman to believe that Dunlap was driving under the influence of alcohol and moved to suppress the results of the breath test conducted at the police station. The Superior Court denied the motion to suppress.
(8) At a subsequent Superior Court bench trial, the breath test result indicating a blood alcohol level of .194 was admitted into evidence, as was a three-hour long videotape of what occurred after Dunlap was taken back to the police station and Dunlap's certified driving record showing that he previously had been adjudged an habitual offender. After admitting the stipulated evidence and reviewing the tape, the Superior Court found Dunlap guilty of the charged offenses.
(9) The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires that a traffic stop and any subsequent police investigation be reasonable in the circumstances. The stop must be justified at its inception by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and any further inquiry must be reasonably related in scope to the purpose for the stop. Moreover, any investigation of the vehicle or its occupant beyond that required to complete the purpose for the stop constitutes a separate seizure that must be supported by independent facts sufficient to justify the additional intrusion. Measured against these standards, Dunlap's first claim is without merit. The traffic stop was clearly based upon a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Moreover, the police officer's decision to order Dunlap out of his vehicle, handcuff him and take him back to the police station for a breath test were clearly reasonable and justified based upon the police officer's observation of Dunlap's behavior.
(10) Dunlap's second claim is also without merit. The trier of fact is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and is responsible for resolving any conflicts in the testimony. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the Superior Court judge, as the trier of fact at the suppression hearing, abused his discretion by accepting the police officer's testimony concerning the traffic stop and Dunlap's subsequent arrest.
(11) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Dunlap's appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We are also satisfied that Dunlap's counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that Dunlap could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.
Page 1 2 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|