 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hillery v. State12/3/2003
lyzer test. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in admitting the officer's testimony regarding the HGN test.
III. Motion to Suppress
For his final argument, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence, because the officer did not have probable cause to approach appellant's vehicle. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we conduct a de novo review based on the totality of the circumstances, reviewing findings of historical fact for clear error and determining whether those facts give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause, giving due weight to inferences drawn by the trial court. Davis v. State, 351 Ark. 406, 94 S.W.3d 892 (2003). In conducting a clear-error review on factual issues, our appellate courts defer to a trial court's resolution of conflicting testimony and its assessment of witnesses' credibility. Lamb v. State, 77 Ark. App. 54, 70 S.W.3d 397 (2002).
Here, the officer testified that he spotted appellant's vehicle parked, with its motor running, on a ramp of Interstate 30 that had "No Parking" signs posted. He saw appellant slumped in the driver's seat. Forthman then knocked on the window several times; when appellant awoke, he rolled down his window and Forthman smelled alcohol, which precipitated the field sobriety test that led to appellant's arrest.
Appellant notes that Forthman testified that eighteen-wheeler trucks park on the ramp so the drivers can sleep, but that his attention was drawn to appellant's truck because it was smaller. Appellant asserts that the State shows no other reason that would justify Forthman approaching the vehicle other than the fact that his truck was smaller than most of the trucks that park on the ramp. He argues that, prior to knocking on the window, Forthman had no facts upon which to base a reasonable suspicion that would warrant further investigation. Appellant's argument is disingenuous. Appellant omits from his discussion Forthman's testimony that the ramp contained "No Parking" signs; that Forthman routinely stops both large and small trucks that park on the ramp; and that he checks "more" on the smaller vehicles, because of his concern that something is wrong or that the smaller vehicle may have "broke down"; and that he had approached approximately six vehicles parked on that ramp in the last six months, and had issued three warning tickets for illegal parking during that same time period.
Despite appellant's assertion, Forthman had probable cause to ask appellant to roll down his window. It is a violation of Arkansas law to park where official signs prohibit parking. Ark. Code Ann. § 27-51-130(a)(14)(Repl. 1994). Here, the officer saw appellant's truck parked on an interstate ramp that was marked with "No Parking" signs. This gave the officer probable cause to believe that appellant had violated a traffic law, to approach the vehicle, and to have appellant roll down his window so that the officer could determine if there was a problem. Moreover, the fact that appellant did not receive a citation for illegally parking does not vitiate the officer's probable cause to approach him. Whether a police officer has probable cause to make a traffic stop does not turn on whether the driver was actually guilty of the violation that the officer believed to have occurred. Laime v. State, 347 Ark. 142, 60 S.W.3d 464 (2001). Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress.
Affirmed.
Neal and Crabtree, JJ., agree.
Page 1 2 3 4 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|