 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bohannon8/21/2003
lights, back lights, and brake lights were all illuminated -- and that there was nothing in the area to obstruct Bohannon's view of Officer Kashimoto's vehicle or the traffic lights ahead of her.
While Officer Kashimoto waited at the intersection, he heard the "screeching of tires coming from behind vehicle"; the screeching sound persisted for approximately two seconds. Officer Kashimoto "immediately looked into rear view mirror observed [Bohannon's] vehicle trying to come to a screeching halt [in order] to avoid colliding into vehicle." Based on the fact that Bohannon's vehicle was close enough to Officer Kashimoto's vehicle that he was unable to see Bohannon's headlights, Officer Kashimoto surmised that Bohannon's vehicle had stopped "within two feet" of his vehicle. Officer Kashimoto further noted that there were no other vehicles in the immediate vicinity; for that reason, he activated his siren and "blue flashing" lights and circled around to Bohannon's vehicle in order to investigate whether she was operating her vehicle "in a safe and prudent manner." Bohannon did not immediately respond to Officer Kashimoto's signal for her to pull over -- i.e., the flashing lights and siren -- but "stayed exactly where she was [when] she came to a stop." Officer Kashimoto testified that Bohannon appeared to be "trying to figure out what was going on." After approximately ten seconds had elapsed, Bohannon maneuvered her vehicle around the corner onto Ala Wai Boulevard and stopped to speak with Officer Kashimoto.
At the hearing, the prosecution argued that, based on "specific and articulable facts" -- i.e., the good lighting, the screeching of Bohannon's tires for approximately two seconds, and her abrupt stop within two feet of Officer Kashimoto's vehicle -- Officer Kashimoto had reasonable suspicion to believe that Bohannon was not operating her vehicle "in a safe and prudent manner" and, thus, was justified in stopping her to investigate the situation. The prosecution reminded the district court that, further to the "reasonable suspicion" standard applicable to investigative stops, Officer Kashimoto "did not have to actually see . . . a crime being committed." The district court granted Bohannon's motion to suppress, reasoning that " he screeching of tires alone was not enough to justify [an investigative stop by] the police officer." Based on the district court's ruling, Bohannon orally moved to dismiss the case against her; the district court granted the motion.
It appears that, on May 26, 2000, the district court clerk recorded the foregoing dispositions on the traffic calender, the notation stating in relevant part as follows:
THE COURT FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO . . . REASONABLE SUSPICION FOR THE STOP. ATTY PHILLIPS FOR DISMISSAL - GRANTED BY THE COURT.
On June 13, 2000, the prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting Bohannon's motion to suppress [hereinafter, "motion for reconsideration"]. On July 17, 2000, the district court conducted a hearing on the matter, during which the prosecution argued, for the first time, that the "public safety" exception to the warrant requirement applied to Officer Kashimoto's investigative stop. The district court denied the motion, remarking as follows:
Alright. Well, the problem that the Court has is that the observation by [Officer Kashimoto] was ever so brief. He only testified to observing the two-minute screeching of tires and then observing [Bohannon] come to a screeching halt, stopping two feet behind [Officer Kashimoto's] vehicle. Had the officer continued to observe [Bohannon's] driving instead of pulling over after the initial episode or had . . . [Officer Kashimoto]
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|