 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stanton v. Moore12/22/1998
Appeal from the District Court for Ward County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Gary A. Holum, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Stanton v. Marshall Moore, Director, North Dakota Department of Transportation Civil No. 980216 Kapsner, Justice.
[ ] Jeffery James Stanton appealed from a district court judgment affirming an administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend his driving privileges for ninety-one days for driving under the influence of alcohol. We conclude the police officer had reasonable grounds to believe Stanton had been driving under the influence. We affirm the district court judgment.
[ ] On January 23, 1998, at approximately 11:35 p.m., a Minot police officer witnessed an accident on Fourth Street from a distance of about 150 yards. He heard "some sliding tires " and looked "up in time to see a vehicle rear end another vehicle." He then saw the "striking" car reverse and back down the street "at a high rate of speed." He noted the basic type and color of the car, and saw a single occupant.
[ ] After an unsuccessful attempt to follow the car, the officer returned to the scene of the accident. The occupants of the remaining car provided him the license plate number of the "striking" car. He telephoned police dispatch and was told the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle coinciding with that license plate number.
[ ] The officer drove to the address, arriving there approximately twenty minutes after observing the collision, and saw a car parked in the driveway. The license plate number matched the number he had been given by the witnesses, and the front bumper of the car was damaged. The officer concluded the car in the driveway was the same car involved in the accident he had witnessed.
[ ] While inspecting the car, the officer saw an individual, later identified as Stanton, walking away from a front window of the house. He went up to the door and knocked for approximately ten minutes with no response. At about 12:12 a.m., he saw Stanton walk from the side of the house toward the front. The officer asked whether Stanton owned the car in the driveway and Stanton acknowledged that he did. The officer then asked Stanton whether he had been involved in an accident "up on Fourth Street over by the jail," and he responded "maybe." Stanton was arrested for leaving the scene of an accident. The officer never asked Stanton whether he had been driving his car at the time of the accident.
[ ] As the officer walked Stanton to his patrol car, he noticed the odor of alcohol. Stanton agreed to perform some field sobriety tests and an Alco-Sensor test. When Stanton failed those tests, the officer arrested him for driving under the influence . Stanton agreed to submit to a blood test and was taken to a hospital where, at approximately 12:22 a.m., on January 24, 1998, a blood sample was drawn. The test revealed Stanton's blood-alcohol concentration was over the legal limit.
[ ] After the Department of Transportation (DOT) notified Stanton of its intent to suspend his license, Stanton requested an administrative hearing. Stanton did not testify at the hearing. The arresting officer testified about the circumstances leading to the arrest of Stanton. The officer testified he had been unable to see who was actually operating the vehicle because of the distance he had been from the collision. The hearing officer, after listening to the testimony of the arresting officer, concluded the officer "had reasonable grounds to believe [Stanton] was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident based upon [Stanton's] response and the surrounding circumstances." She also concluded "a reas
Page 1 2 3 4 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|