 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Harley3/8/2004
A police officer initially detained defendant Michael John Harley for a suspected Vehicle Code violation for driving a vehicle with an improperly mounted dealer plate. Defendant was subsequently charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or more, and driving on a suspended license; the People further alleged defendant had suffered three prior drunk driving convictions and had a blood alcohol level of .20 percent or more at the time of his arrest. The trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress wherein he argued the statute in question, Vehicle Code section 11715, subdivision (a), had not been violated, and, therefore, the officer lacked probable cause to detain him. After the motion was granted, the People were unable to proceed and the case was dismissed.
The District Attorney contends the court incorrectly interpreted the relevant statutes and erred in granting the motion to suppress. He further argues that, even if the court's implicit construction of Vehicle Code section 11715 is correct, the detention was lawful based on the arresting officer's reasonable suspicion criminal activity was taking place. Defendant disagrees and requests we take judicial notice of a Department of Motor Vehicles handbook interpreting the challenged statute. We grant the request and affirm.
FACTS
After denying defendant's initial motion to suppress, the trial court granted his request for a rehearing. As a result, a second evidentiary hearing was conducted to supplement the evidence previously presented. The facts discussed herein are drawn from the record of both evidentiary hearings.
Officer Esqueda of the Westminster Police Department was on patrol duty when he crossed paths with a vehicle driving into a motel parking lot off Beach Boulevard. The officer, who had been about to exit the parking lot, turned and glanced at the rear of the vehicle as it drove past him. He noticed a dealer plate hanging from the back of the vehicle partially covering the regular license plate.
Esqueda later testified that the dealer plate was attached with a wire closed within the hatch lid. Because of the "unorthodox" manner in which the dealer plate was hung, he decided to initiate an investigative stop. Esqueda believed the Vehicle Code required the dealer plate to be affixed directly on top of the vehicle's regular license plate. Because the vehicle was an early 80's model Toyota Corolla in poor condition, he also suspected the dealer plate, and possibly the vehicle itself, had been stolen. Once detained, it became apparent that the driver of the vehicle, defendant, was inebriated, and the criminal charges against him ensued on that basis.
As it turned out, defendant worked at a nearby car dealership and was authorized to use the dealer plate for business purposes, but not on his own car for personal use. Richard Eddington, the sales manager for the dealership, had been called to the scene to identify defendant. Esqueda returned the dealer plate to Eddington, who later testified the plate was contained within a rubber mounting device and had no wires attached to it. Officer Brackett, who arrived at the scene three minutes into the detention, observed the dealer plate hanging from the rear of defendant's vehicle. He subsequently testified that the plate was attached to a temporary rubber mounting device extending down from the trunk. Brackett did not recall seeing any kind of wire attached to the vehicle. A similar rubber mounting device presented during the second evidentiary hearing was described as "a rectangular piece of rubber, just slightly larger than a license plate ... [with] two straps extending along from the top, probably five inches long[,] ... which can be used to attach the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|