 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Layne v. Commonwealth9/1/1992
Supreme Court of the United States has identified two types of seizures of the person protected by the Fourth Amendment-- arrest and investigatory stop." Baldwin v. Commonwealth, 243 Va. 191, 195, 413 S.E.2d 645, 647 (1992). Not every investigative detention, in order to be lawful and comply with the fourth amendment, requires that the officer have the power or authority to arrest for criminal conduct that may have occurred. As to an investigatory stop, in the interest of "effective crime prevention. . . a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior." Terry, 392 U.S. at 22 (emphasis added). Reported recent crimes may, as was the case here, be the basis for a police officer's reasonably suspecting that possibly criminal activity may be imminent. An officer need not possess the statutory authority to effect an arrest for prior criminal conduct in order to effect a Terry type detention to investigate incipient criminal activity. Where, as here, Officer Williams stopped Layne in her vehicle, a seizure occurred for purposes of the fourth amendment. Nevertheless, because Officer Williams had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that Layne had committed a criminal offense and might do so again, he was justified in temporarily detaining her to inquire about her identity and the legality of her conduct. Because Layne was not illegally detained, we reject
her contention that the evidence of her intoxication should have been suppressed. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Layne's conviction.
Affirmed.
Disposition
Affirmed.
|