 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. White3/11/2002
The evidence reflects that Olene McCluskey returned to her Murfreesboro home on August 31, 1999, to discover that it had been burglarized. It appeared that a crowbar or like instrument was used to pry the backdoor open. A television set, VCR and cabinet, jewelry, guns, tools and other property totaling approximately $4,500 were missing.
The police developed the defendant as a suspect and conducted a surveillance of him in several unmarked police cars on September 8, 1999. Rutherford County Sheriff's Detective James Harrell said he checked their "in house" computer sometime earlier and determined that the defendant had been arrested on August 20, 1999, for driving on a suspended license, and he so advised the other officers. After a short period of surveillance and thinking that the defendant had spotted them, Detective Harrell directed Rutherford County Sheriff's Detective Dan Goodwin to stop the defendant. Both detectives believed that their knowledge regarding the defendant's license justified a stop.
Detective Goodwin testified that he positioned his car head on to the defendant in the defendant's lane of traffic and that he turned on his siren and blue and white flashing lights. The defendant stopped his truck in front of Detective Goodwin for several seconds, then drove off the road and across a ditch into a yard. Detective Goodwin stated that he followed the defendant, who ultimately turned onto a driveway and drove toward a garage. Detective Goodwin said the defendant then veered and hit a chain-link fence, which stopped his truck. The defendant fled on foot but was apprehended nearby. Items stolen from Olene McCluskey were found in the truck.
I. SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE
The defendant contends that his initial stop by the officers was without basis and violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution regarding searches and seizures. His primary thrust is that the officers only knew that he had been arrested and that they should have checked to determine the status of his license at the time of the stop. He asserts that otherwise, the officers did not have a reasonable and articulable basis to suspect that he was violating the law. The state replies that the officer's knowledge of the defendant's earlier arrest would give rise to a reasonable suspicion that would justify his stop. It cites to State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 631 (Tenn. 1997), in which our supreme court concluded that an officer, who observed the defendant operating a vehicle six months after having arrested the defendant for driving under the influence (DUI) and having been in court when the defendant was convicted of DUI and received a one-year license revocation, had reason to suspect that the defendant was driving without a license. We believe the state's reliance is misplaced. The fact that the officer in Yeargan knew that the defendant had his license revoked, witnessing it in court, is a far cry from merely knowing that a person has been arrested.
On the other hand, regardless of our view of the initial stop, we believe that the defendant's subsequent actions justified his arrest. At that point, an inventory search of the truck after it was impounded was justified. Unquestionably, after Detective Goodwin stopped the defendant, the defendant drove off the road to avoid the detective and ultimately knowingly damaged a chain-link fence. An unlawful stop or arrest does not immunize a person for subsequent conduct that justifies a stop or arrest. See, e.g., State v. Robert Lee Mallard, No. M2000-00351-CCA-R3-CD, Rutherford County (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 23, 2001); State v. George Wesley Harville, Jr., No
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|