 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Almeter v. Municipality of Anchorage3/4/1998
MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
Philip D. Almeter appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated, Anchorage Municipal Code 9.28.020(A). He contends that the evidence against him was obtained as a result of an unjustified investigative stop.
When Almeter raised this claim in the district court, District Court Judge Natalie K. Finn held a hearing on this issue. At this hearing, Anchorage Police Officer Theodore Queen testified that he observed Almeter accelerate quickly while turning from International Airport Road onto the Old Seward Highway, heading north. As Queen followed Almeter north on the Old Seward Highway, Almeter continued his acceleration and appeared to weave within his lane of traffic. Although Queen was not able to clock Almeter's vehicle with certainty, Queen believed that Almeter broke the speed limit: Queen explained that, to catch up with Almeter, he himself had to exceed the speed limit.
When Almeter reached the intersection with Tudor Road, he headed right, toward the New Seward Highway. Queen pulled behind Almeter and activated his overhead lights, trying to get Almeter to pull over. Almeter ignored the lights and proceeded down Tudor Road toward Lake Otis Parkway. At the intersection of Tudor and Lake Otis, Almeter stopped at a red light. Queen again activated his overhead lights, and this time Almeter pulled over. When Queen made contact with Almeter, he noticed definite signs of intoxication, and he eventually arrested Almeter for driving while intoxicated.
On appeal, Almeter proposes several possible grounds for discrediting Queen's testimony. However, questions regarding the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of testimony are reserved to the trier of fact - in this case, Judge Finn. We are obliged to view the testimony in the light most favorable to upholding the district court's ruling. See Long v. State, 772 P.2d 1099, 1101 (Alaska App. 1989).
Viewing the officer's testimony in this manner, Judge Finn was correct in ruling that the facts known to the officer supported the investigative stop. Almeter was apparently speeding, he was weaving within his lane, and he failed to notice when Queen activated the overhead lights of his patrol car. These facts gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that Almeter was under the influence of intoxicants. See Ebona v. State, 577 P.2d 698, 701 (Alaska 1978); State v. Moran, 667 P.2d 734, 736 (Alaska App. 1983).
For instance, in Hamman v. State, 883 P.2d 994 (Alaska App. 1994), a police officer observed the defendant's vehicle being driven erratically; the vehicle weaved within its lane, then left its lane of travel and jerked back into the lane. We concluded: Even if Hamman had not left his lane of travel, it was not necessary for [the officer] to wait for Hamman to violate a traffic law before stopping him. A police officer need not "see the person he ultimately stops do something dangerous. ... It is sufficient if the officer observes facts which lead him to reasonably believe that the person to be stopped is dangerous." Moran, 667 P.2d at 736 (emphasis in the original).
Hamman, 883 P.2d at 995.
The officer's observations in the present case likewise provided a reasonable basis for suspecting that Almeter's ability to drive was impaired by intoxicants. Thus, Judge Finn correctly ruled that the officer was justified in performing an investigative stop of Almeter's vehicle, and that the evidence obtained as a result of that stop was admissible against Almeter.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|