 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Whaley5/21/2003
I. Factual Background
The appellant was indicted by the Hamilton County Grand Jury on one count of DUI and one count of assault based upon the events of December 9, 1998. At trial, Officer Gary Martin of the Chattanooga Police Department testified that on December 9, 1998, he and Officer Danny Christian were dispatched to the Brainerd Road area of Chattanooga in response to a call that an intoxicated individual driving a 1989 Ford Tempo had just left a bar in the area. The officers were driving separate vehicles. According to Officer Martin, the officers observed the vehicle in question and began pursuit. Soon thereafter, despite the fact that the officers had not activated their blue lights, the vehicle parked on the side of the road. The officers parked behind the vehicle and walked towards the vehicle.
As the officers neared, the driver, Michael Randles, got out of the Ford Tempo. Officer Christian approached Randles while Officer Martin stood alongside the vehicle, acting "as a security officer." As Officer Christian was "dealing with" Randles, Officer Martin observed the vehicle's passenger, the appellant, move into the driver's seat. Officer Martin testified that the vehicle was running and he believed that the appellant "was going to run." He explained, " ll she had to do was drop it in drive and hit the gas, she was gone."
Officer Martin approached the driver's side of the vehicle and asked the appellant what she was doing. The appellant advised Officer Martin "that she was driving." Officer Martin asked the appellant to exit the vehicle and she complied, stumbling as she exited. Officer Martin asserted that at that point the keys were in the ignition of the car and that the car was running. However, Officer Martin did not recall at what point the keys were removed from the vehicle. Specifically, the following colloquy occurred:
State: Before [you administered field sobriety tests], where were the keys at this stage?
Officer Martin: They're still in the ignition of the car, the car is still on.
State: When did they get out of the ignition of the car?
Officer Martin: I don't recall that. I don't know if it's after we placed them both into custody or if we shut it off at the time that I got her out of the car. Actually, that's unusual, I don't ever do that. Keys were probably still in the ignition.
Officer Martin testified that after the appellant stepped out of the vehicle, he had her perform three field sobriety tests, namely the "HGN, the walk-and-turn and the one-leg stand." Based upon the appellant's performance on the tests, Officer Martin opined that "she was not fit to be driving." He arrested the appellant for DUI and took her to the jail. Officer Christian arrested Randles for DUI and transported him to the jail.
Officer Martin related that the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department operated the jail. Therefore, Officer Martin, a city police officer, was not allowed to go into the booking area which was located deeper inside the jail. Instead, Officer Martin was required to complete his paperwork on an individual in the outer law lobby and then relinquish custody of the individual to an officer with the Sheriff's Department for the booking process.
In the law lobby of the jail, Officer Martin reviewed with the appellant an implied consent form, but the appellant refused to take a "breathalyzer" test or to sign the implied consent form. According to Officer Martin, the appellant vehemently maintained that she knew several people who would "get her out of this." The entire time the appellant was at the scene and at the jail, she insisted that she had been dri
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|