 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Seela v. Moore12/22/1999
en Seela was talking with Dellwo. We have previously observed:
"In dealing with probable cause, however, as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. The standard of proof is accordingly correlative to what must be proved.
"These long-prevailing standards seek to safeguard citizens from rash and unreasonable interferences with privacy and from unfounded charges of crime. They also seek to give fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community's protection. . . . The rule of probable cause is a practical, non-technical conception affording the best compromise that has been found for accommodating these often opposing interests. Requiring more would unduly hamper law enforcement. To allow less would be to leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the officers' whim or caprice."
State v. Chaussee, 138 N.W.2d 788, 792 (N.D. 1965) quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-176 (1949).
[ ] Although more sophisticated screening or field sobriety tests, which Kadrmas was not certified to administer, were given by Dellwo, the results of those tests are not necessary to establish probable cause to arrest for driving while under the influence. Tests such as the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and other on-site screening tests, administered in this case, are fairly recent and helpful tools for an officer to determine probable cause to arrest for driving under the influence . E.g., Asbridge v. North Dakota State Highway Com'r, 291 N.W.2d 739 (N.D. 1980) (concluding purpose of on-site screening test is to ensure sufficient probable cause exists to warrant arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol). Prior to the advent of such screening tests, arrests based on probable cause were being made. E.g., State v. Salhus, 220 N.W.2d 852 (N.D. 1974) (holding defendant's failure to stop when officer was following him with red light blinking, staggering when leaving the vehicle, steadying himself by putting hands on vehicle, and difficulty finding drivers license were sufficient facts taken together to constitute probable cause).
[ ] We conclude Kadrmas's observations and knowledge under the circumstances, including the strong odor of alcohol emanating from Seela's person, observation of Seela's watery and bloodshot eyes, observance of Seela swaying while standing outside his vehicle, and the length of time it took Seela to stop his vehicle, gave Kadrmas probable cause to arrest Seela for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Kadrmas had probable cause to arrest Seela without relying upon Dellwo's actions or observations. Therefore, the Department's failure to call Dellwo to testify at the hearing did not deny Seela a fair hearing. We make no determination in this case whether Dellwo's failure to testify would have denied Seela a fair hearing if probable cause to arrest was dependent, in whole or in part, upon Dellwo's actions or observations. We need not consider questions, the answers to which are not necessary to the determination of an appeal. State v. Evans, 1999 ND 70, 17, 593 N.W.2d 336.
[ ] We hold the Department's findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, its conclusions of law are sustained by the findings of fact, and the decision is in accordance with the law. We, therefore, reverse the district court judgment and remand for reinstatement of the administrative suspension of Seela's drivers license.
|