 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reichel v. State11/12/2004
just occurred, and (2) that the conduct involved in this violation of parole meets the Coleman-Ebona test - i.e., that the parole violation creates an "imminent public danger" or it involves "[recent] serious harm to persons or property".
As we explained earlier in this opinion (when we rejected the State's argument that the police had a reasonable suspicion that Reichel was about to drive while intoxicated), the facts known to the police when they stopped Reichel did not provide reason to believe that an imminent public danger existed or that serious harm to persons or property had just occurred. The officers knew that Reichel had just been inside the bar. They might reasonably have suspected that Reichel had consumed alcoholic beverages while in the bar. And they reasonably suspected that Reichel's conditions of release forbade him from engaging in these activities. But these facts, even in combination, do not amount to a reasonable suspicion that Reichel posed an imminent danger to the public.
Thus, even under the State's interpretation of the law - that is, even assuming that the Coleman-Ebona rule allows the police to conduct investigative stops based on reasonable suspicion of a serious parole violation - the facts of Reichel's case would not support the investigative stop. For this reason, we conclude that the parties' various arguments concerning the proper interpretation of Roman and the Coleman-Ebona rule are moot.
The superior court's alternative rationale for upholding the investigative stop
In addition to the theories that we have already discussed, the superior court ruled that the investigative stop was justified because Reichel's conditions of parole required him to submit to a breath test or to a search for controlled substances at the request or direction of any police officer. On appeal, the State does not defend this rationale for the investigative stop. As we explained in the preceding section of this opinion, the Alaska Supreme Court's decision in Roman v. State holds that these conditions of Reichel's parole are unconstitutional.
Conclusion
Reichel's suppression motion should have been granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the superior court is REVERSED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|