 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dayton v. State5/7/2003
David C. Dayton pleaded no contest to the charge of driving while intoxicated , reserving his right to challenge the legality of the manner in which the police obtained the evidence against him. Much of this evidence was obtained when the police entered a hotel room (a room rented to someone other than Dayton) and found Dayton under some bed covers. Dayton asserts that the police entered the hotel room without the consent of the occupant.
The first potential legal issue in this case is the question of standing. Normally, Dayton would not be entitled to suppression of evidence based on the violation of someone else's Fourth Amendment rights. However, neither party to this appeal has addressed this issue. Moreover, we conclude that the issue of standing is moot -because the trial judge found that the hotel occupant did consent to the police entry, and the trial judge's finding is not clearly erroneous.
The Fairbanks police went to Room 252 of the Klondike Inn in response to a report that two crimes had possibly been committed: domestic violence and driving while intoxicated. When the officers arrived, they knocked on the door of the room. An adult occupant opened the door, saw the officers, and then gestured with his arm as if inviting the officers to enter. The occupant then turned and walked into the center of the room, leaving the door open. Other people were in the hotel room, but no one voiced any objection to the officers' presence. The officers walked through the room and found Dayton under some bed covers. (Dayton was fully clothed.)
In the trial court, Dayton argued that the occupant of the hotel room did not voluntarily consent to the officers' entry but merely acquiesced to the officers' show of authority. Following an evidentiary hearing, District Court Judge Mark I. Wood found that the occupant had indeed consented to the entry. Judge Wood stated:
The Court: I don't see any duress on the part of the officers [while] they were there. There was no reason for the person opening the door to think that [he was under] pressure [to submit to the entry]. And when he saw the police officers, he stepped back and gestured that they come in, and [then he] turned away from [the officers] and walked away from the door as if he expected them to come in. Under these facts, I find ... by clear and convincing evidence ... that the person who opened the door did give consent [to the entry].
Dayton's case turns on this finding of fact - the finding that the hotel occupant voluntarily invited the officers into the room. On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judge's ruling, and we must decide whether the trial judge's finding is clearly erroneous. After reviewing the record, we conclude that Judge Wood's finding is not clearly erroneous. We therefore uphold the judge's denial of Dayton's suppression motion.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|