 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Washburn v. Town of Blountsville5/28/1999
ille failed to establish reasonable suspicion to support the initial stop of his automobile. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968), the United States Supreme Court held that "a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest." It is well established that
"a police officer may make a brief investigatory detention based upon a 'reasonable suspicion' of criminal activity. This court in State v. Bodereck, 549 So.2d 542, 545-46 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), quoting from United States v. Post, 607 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1979), discussed 'reasonable suspicion' as mentioned in Terry and stated:
"' he quantum of cause necessary to justify an investigatory stop is a "reasonable" or "founded" suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a criminal act.... The founded suspicion must arise from specific facts and not inchoate hunches, but the officer is entitled to draw inferences from those facts in light of his experience.'"
Gaskin v. State, 565 So.2d 675, 677 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990). "Under Terry, a stop may be made on the basis of reasonable suspicion, which is a less demanding standard than probable cause; it may be satisfied by a lesser quantity or content of information or less reliable information than would be required for a finding of probable cause." Atwell v. State 594 So.2d 202 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), cert. denied sub nom. Inabinett v. State, 594 So.2d 214 (Ala. 1992), citing Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990).
Although evidence of reckless driving was presented at trial on a related charge in this case, we cannot review this evidence as the Town of Blountsville asks us to do in its brief, because that evidence was not before the trial court when it found Washburn guilty of reckless driving. (Appellee's brief, p. 3.) Therefore, we will review only the stipulated facts that were before the trial court when it found Washburn guilty of reckless driving and of driving under the influence .
As a result of Washburn's objection to the stipulated facts regarding willful and reckless driving, there are no facts before this court establishing that Washburn was driving recklessly on September 28, 1998. Therefore, we conclude that the prosecutor did not present any evidence from which the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Washburn's automobile.
Even if there had been evidence indicating that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Washburn's automobile, there was no evidence before the court from which the court could find him guilty of reckless driving or of driving under the influence .
The Alabama Code defines the offense of reckless driving as:
"(a) Any person who drives any vehicle carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard for the rights or safety of persons or property, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of reckless driving." § 32-5A-190, Ala. Code 1975.
In the case at hand, Washburn objected to the stipulation that he was driving recklessly when he was stopped. (R. 7.) Because Washburn objected to this language, there is absolutely no evidence before this court on appeal that Washburn was driving recklessly. Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred by finding Washburn guilty of reckless driving.
Section 32-5A-191, Ala. Code 1975, defines the offense of driving under the influence . The pertinent portion of § 32-5A-191 provides:
"(a) A person shall not drive or be in actu
Page 1 2 3 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|