 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Washington v. Anderson6/16/1988
The District Court dismissed a driving-while-intoxicated charge against Lynda Anderson, holding that the trooper who arrested her made an unlawful stop of her vehicle. The Superior Court reversed, and we accepted discretionary review.
On May 29, 1986, Trooper Art Lothrop was traveling north on Highway 195 out of Colfax when he saw Wayne Ristau, a juvenile probation and parole officer, driving a car in the opposite direction and waving at him as if something was wrong. Trooper Lothrop made a U-turn and followed Mr. Ristau who was pointing out the window at the Volkswagen ahead of him. As the trooper started by him, Mr. Ristau gestured "like a snake . . . going back and forth." Trooper Lothrop followed the Volkswagen for about one-quarter of a mile, observed the driver weave within her own lane, then stopped her. Apparently, before he approached the Volkswagen, he talked to Mr. Ristau who had pulled in behind him. Mr. Ristau told him the Volkswagen had been over the center line and had been weaving considerably. The driver was Lynda Anderson, and, after smelling intoxicants, Trooper Lothrop arrested her for driving under the influence .
Ms. Anderson moved to suppress the evidence gained in the stop. At the suppression hearing, Trooper Lothrop testified concerning the tip by Mr. Ristau and his own observations of Ms. Anderson's driving:
[Mr. Ristau's gestures] told me there was something wrong with the vehicle ahead of him . . . that there was something out of line or something that gives him alarm to notify me . . .
It didn't enter my mind as like some criminal type of activity, cuttin coke or shootin out the window or something like that, I just thought there was something wrong with the driving part of it.
I wouldn't classify it as that erratic, as far as wandering back and forth in her own lane, no.
The District Court suppressed the evidence, reasoning:
[Trooper Lothrop] couldn't draw any conclusion from [what he had observed]. . . . he nature of the tip, here, really wasn't very much. . . . hen you consider the nature of the information that was provided by the motioning and a little bit of weaving, which didn't amount to an infraction or criminal activity . . . Campbell [ v. Department of Licensing, 31 Wash. App. 833, 644 P.2d 1219 (1982)] . . . to me, says, that isn't enough to make a stop. . . . It isn't an objective fact from which anyone could reasonably conclude that there was . . . criminal conduct taking place.
The State appealed to the Superior Court, which reversed. In its memorandum opinion, the court stated:
It seems to the Court that the gestures made by the probation officer were equivalent to a verbal communication to the effect that "the car ahead is weaving in a sufficiently unusual manner that it seems something must be wrong". . . The fact that the gestures were a weaving motion conveyed in demonstrative fashion the facts supporting the observer's conclusions. So, it appears the question then becomes, is a statement by an observer to an officer, to the effect that the car ahead is weaving from side to side, sufficient, in itself, to justify a brief investigatory stop by the officer?
The Court believes the answer to that question is yes . . .
First, Ms. Anderson contends the Superior Court impermissibly substituted its own findings of fact for those of the District Court. Specifically, the District Court stated in its oral opinion that "the nature of the tip, here, really wasn't
very much." In contrast, the Superior Court viewed Mr. Ristau's gestures as "equivalent to a verba
Page 1 2 3 Washington DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|