 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tapscott v. Municipality of Anchorage6/16/1999
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
No. 4063
Willis V. Tapscott appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated. He claims that the evidence against him was obtained as the result of an unlawful stop of his vehicle. He also claims that the police denied him his right to contact an attorney before taking a breath test. For the reasons explained here, we reject both of these contentions and we affirm Tapscott's conviction.
Tapscott was stopped because he was driving without his headlights at about 1:15 in the morning on June 20, 1997. The sun had been down for more than an hour. Both municipal law and state law require drivers to have their headlights on from one-half hour after sunset until one-half hour before sunrise.
Officer Mitchell Paige observed Tapscott driving with his headlights off. Tapscott's vehicle stood out because all the other cars on the road had their headlights on. Paige did not immediately stop Tapscott; rather, he flashed his spotlight at Tapscott's vehicle several times in an effort to get Tapscott to turn on his lights. When Tapscott did not respond, Paige pulled Tapscott over.
Tapscott appeared to be intoxicated, so Paige administered field sobriety tests to Tapscott - tests that Tapscott failed. Paige then arrested Tapscott for driving while intoxicated and took him to the police station for a breath test.
Tapscott first claims that the police had no authority to stop his vehicle. Tapscott concedes that, by driving without his headlights on, he was violating the law. He points out, however, that he was stopped on the morning of June 20th (that is, just one day before the summer solstice). Tapscott argues that in mid-June, even at one o'clock in the morning, there is sufficient light to see other vehicles, and therefore Officer Paige must have used the headlight law as a pretext for making the traffic stop.
We take judicial notice that even on June 21st, the longest day of the year, the sun is below the horizon at Anchorage for more than 4 hours and that, even during such a short night, the daylight turns to dusk. The Alaska Legislature and the Anchorage Municipal Assembly could reasonably conclude that the public safety would be enhanced by a law requiring drivers to use their headlights. Headlights do more than aid drivers to see; they also help drivers to be seen.
If Tapscott believes that the state law and the municipal law are unnecessary, he should address his concerns to the proper legislative bodies. The fact remains, however, that the state regulation and the municipal ordinance were both in effect on June 20, 1997, and Officer Paige had probable cause to believe that Tapscott was violating the law.
Moreover, even though Tapscott asserts that his violation of the headlight law was only a "pretext" for the traffic stop, Tapscott does not identify what it was a pretext for. That is, Tapscott fails to suggest what other, improper motive Paige might have had to stop his vehicle.
For these reasons, we conclude that the traffic stop of Tapscott's vehicle was lawful.
Tapscott next argues that the police interfered with his right to contact an attorney before he decided whether to take the breath test. However, the record does not support Tapscott's claim.
Tapscott knew of his right to contact an attorney. From the time of his initial arrest, he engaged in efforts to contact an attorney. Tapscott's son was with him in the car when he was stopped. As the police were arresting Tapscott, he handed a cellular telephone to his son, gave the son the name of an attorney, and instructed the son to call the attorney.
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|