 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Crasco9/19/2003
not clearly erroneous. Thus, this Court declines to disturb it.
ISSUE TWO
Was the District Court's denial of Crasco's Motion to Suppress and Dismiss, on the ground that the officers had probable cause for arrest, clearly erroneous?
Crasco next argues that the District Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because the officers lacked probable cause for his arrest.
A peace officer may arrest a person when a warrant has not been issued if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person is committing an offense or that the person has committed an offense and existing circumstances require immediate arrest. Section 46-6311(1), MCA (1999). Probable cause is established if the facts and circumstances within an officer's personal knowledge, or related to the officer by a reliable source, are sufficient to warrant a reasonable person to believe that another person is committing or has committed an offense. State v. Williamson , 1998 MT 199, 12, 290 Mont. 321, 12, 965 P.2d 231, 234, citing Jess v. State Dept. of Justice, MVD (1992), 255 Mont. 254, 261, 841 P.2d 1137, 1141.
Patrolman Atchley testified that the deputies contacted him on the radio and informed him they had stopped a possible DUI. When he arrived, he inquired as to their reason for stopping the vehicle and they informed him they had observed the vehicle illegally pass other vehicles on Highway 2. Patrolman Atchley observed that Crasco had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech, and he detected an odor of alcohol. Patrolman Atchley testified that based on his firsthand observations and the statements from the deputies that Crasco had been driving the vehicle, it was appropriate to place Crasco under arrest for DUI. Patrolman Atchley further testified that he issued a citation for passing in a no-passing zone based on the statements of the deputies.
The facts and circumstances within Patrolman Atchley's personal knowledge were Crasco's behavior and the odor of alcohol. Further information was related to him by reliable sources--the deputies--indicating that Crasco had committed the offense of passing in a no-passing zone. Based on the information available, Patrolman Atchley had probable cause to arrest Crasco for the two offenses.
We conclude that, based upon the evidence submitted, the District Court's finding of probable cause for Crasco's arrest was not clearly erroneous. Thus, this Court declines to disturb it.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court.
PATRICIA COTTER
We Concur:
KARLA M. GRAY
JAMES C. NELSON
W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
JIM RICE
|