DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer
facebook.com/MyDUI

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

Bruns v. State

4/16/2003



Edward Bruns appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated. He argues that the evidence against him was obtained illegally, after the police stopped him without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.


According to the undisputed facts, Nome Police Officer Daniel Bennett saw Bruns driving a pickup truck early in the morning on November 7, 2001. Bruns attracted Bennett's attention because Bruns was traveling at about ten miles per hour under the speed limit. Approximately ten minutes later, Bennett saw Bruns again. While Bennett watched, Bruns stopped at an intersection in the left-hand lane of the road, then made a right-hand turn from this left lane. A few moments later, Bruns ran a stop sign. Bennett pulled Bruns over and discovered that he was intoxicated.


Bennett observed Bruns commit two traffic violations - making an illegal right turn, and failing to stop for a stop sign. Bennett was therefore justified in stopping Bruns. Moreover, leaving aside the fact that Bruns committed these traffic violations, we conclude that Bennett's observations supported a reasonable suspicion that Bruns was driving while intoxicated - thus providing an independent justification for the stop. See Ebona v. State, 577 P.2d 698, 701 (Alaska 1978).


We note that, when Officer Bennett testified at the suppression hearing, he did not offer this same rationale for stopping Bruns. However, the legality of the stop does not depend on Officer Bennett's subjective reasons for making the stop. Rather, the legality of the stop is judged under an objective test: "whether the facts known to the officer at the time of the stop would cause a reasonable person to [suspect] that the manner in which the ... vehicle was being operated posed a threat of imminent public danger". Ebona, 577 P.2d at 701. Here, the facts establish the requisite reasonable suspicion.


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.

DUI Driving Defined Highway Defined
Under Influence Defined DUI/3 Strikes DUI & Manslaughter
DUI & Murder DUI Punishment Sobriety Checkpoints
DMV's Role in DUI Revocation vs. Suspension Field Sobriety Testing
Speed Measurement Prior DUI Convictions Drawing Blood & Consent
Refusal to Test DUI Lawyers Testimonials by Member DUI Lawyers
DUI Articles Ignition Interlock Implied Consent
Summary DUI License Suspension In-home Arrest Vehicle Defined
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites  |  Draeger FAQ
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Trading Partners | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | DUI Forum | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.