 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Washington v. Anderson6/16/1988
n Trooper Lothrop's own testimony that he wasn't sure what was wrong; it could have been anything. However, " hether a constitutional violation has occurred turns on an objective assessment of the officer's actions . . . not on the officer's actual state of mind . . ." State v. Petty, 48 Wash. App. 615, 620, 740 P.2d 879, review denied, 109 Wash. 2d 1012 (1987) (citing, inter alia, Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 470-71, 86 L. Ed. 2d 370, 105 S. Ct. 2778 (1985)). An officer is not required to rule out all possibilities of innocent behavior before initiating a brief stop and request for identification. United States v. Poitier, 818 F.2d 679, 683 n.2 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, U.S. , 98 L. Ed. 2d 651, 108 S. Ct. 700 (1988); United States v. Holland, 510 F.2d 453 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1010 (1975).
Even if it was equally probable that the vehicle or its occupants were innocent of any wrongdoing, police officers must be permitted to act before their reasonable belief is verified by escape or fruition of the harm it was their duty to prevent.
(Footnote omitted.) Holland, at 455.
Accordingly, we hold the investigatory stop was proper, and the evidence obtained thereby is admissible.
The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.
Disposition
Holding that the superior court had not disregarded the district court's factual findings in concluding that the stop was valid, the court affirms the judgment.
Page 1 2 3 Washington DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|