 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Edwards v. State6/19/2001
dwards argues that Department of Transportation officers may not conduct the test that then confirmed his impairment. The officers testified that they were not permitted to conduct an intoxilyzer test or take a blood or urine sample. The statute cited by Edwards that does not list MDOT officers applies to "a chemical test or tests of his breath, blood or urine . . . ." Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-5 (1) (Rev. 2000).
. This is not the test administered on Edwards. What he received is called a "field sobriety test." The test basically measures coordination by requiring a suspect to attempt performing such tasks as walking a straight line or standing on one leg. The officer who gave the test stated that he had been trained in its administration. Department of Transportation officers at inspection and weight stations are authorized to arrest drivers who are found in violation of "laws with reference to the fitness of a driver," among other laws. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 27-5-71 through 27-5-75 (Rev. 1999). Thus these officers had the right to arrest Edwards for being impaired, which requires that they have a probable cause basis on which to do so. The field sobriety test indicated that he was under the influence of some substance and therefore impaired as a driver. Such tests may create probable cause to arrest for driving under the influence . Young v. City of Brookhaven, 693 So.2d 1355, 1361 (Miss. 1997). There is no statutory prohibition on MDOT officers' performing the test and we find no other grounds on which to prohibit it.
C. Discovery of marijuana cigarette in cab of truck
. The trial also found that the improbable "plain feel" discovery of drugs in Edwards's pocket was cured by the discovery in "plain view" of a marijuana cigarette between the front seats of Edwards's truck. We have already found that the officers had the authority randomly to subject vehicles to a more intrusive inspection. Edwards had been selected for that inspection. By standing on the running board at the driver's door, the officer testified he saw into the truck and discerned that a marijuana cigarette was in a tin cup. The trial judge specifically accepted that testimony.
. We find no Fourth Amendment hindrance to a law enforcement officer's reasonable steps to look through a high vehicular window. This is akin to the enhanced view that police may properly gain by using binoculars or artificial lighting. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 740 (1983) ("use of a searchlight is comparable to the use of a marine glass or a field glass"). That is the same view an officer could gain if the Department of Transportation had a platform constructed adjacent to where trucks parked on which officers could stand; such a platform would not violate Fourth Amendment rights. By "balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests," we find the enhanced view from the running board to be acceptably limited inspection technique. Prouse, 440 U.S. at 654; cf. Kyllo v. United States, -- U.S. -- , No. 99-8508 (June 11, 2001) (thermal imaging to measure heat emanating from home was a search).
. Evidence found in plain view by officers who have a legal right to be in the position to view, if the object's incriminating character is immediately apparent, can be seized without a warrant. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-137 (1990). An officer had the right to step on the running board. The officer testified that he saw and was able to identify the marijuana joint when he stepped onto the running board and looked through the window. The trial court accepted that testimony.
. Once the marijuana in the truck was discovered
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|