 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. State11/10/2004
ond police encounter is when the officer may justifiably restrain an individual for a short period of time if they have an "articulable suspicion" that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. The initially consensual encounter is transformed into a seizure when, considering all the circumstances, a reasonable person would not believe that he is not free to leave. The final category is the full-scale arrest, which must be based on probable cause.
Id. at 289, 86 S.W.3d at 405. Williams apparently contends that, because the encounter in this case did not take place on a street but instead on his property, and because it was not "consensual," it amounted to a "search" or "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
The State, however, argues that nothing in the Constitution prohibits the police from addressing questions to any individual, and that not all personal intercourse between the police and citizens involves "seizures" of persons under the Fourth Amendment. The approach of a citizen pursuant to a policeman's investigative law enforcement function must be reasonable under the existent circumstances and requires a weighing of the government's interest for the intrusion against the individual's right to privacy and personal freedom. Blakemore v. State, 25 Ark. App. 335, 758 S.W.2d 425 (1988). Rule 2.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure states, in relevant part, that:
A law enforcement officer may request any person to furnish information or otherwise cooperate in the investigation or prevention of crime. The officer may request the person to respond to questions, to appear at a police station, or to comply with any other reasonable request.
Ark. R. Crim. P. 2.2(a). In Blakemore, we found that a police officer's actions were reasonable in accordance with Rule 2.2 where the officer was patrolling an area during the early morning hours to check for possible break-ins of businesses, found the intoxicated defendant asleep or passed out in his truck which was parked in the area with its lights on and its motor running, and knocked on the window of defendant's truck to question him or make an inquiry. Blakemore v. State, supra. We specifically noted in that case that the officer did not know if the defendant was "ill, drunk, or merely asleep" and that, given the circumstances, the officer's actions were justified as part of his community caretaking function. Id.
Similarly, in this case, Officer Hendrix noticed the brake lights on Williams's truck while on routine patrol in a trailer park. The truck was parked in front of Williams's trailer. According to his testimony, Hendrix drove by the truck to check to see if anyone was going to get out and go inside the trailer. Hendrix stated that he saw Williams leaning over against the driver's side of the truck, and, when he did not see Williams move or get out of the vehicle, he proceeded to knock on the truck's window to check Williams's welfare.
According to Hendrix, when Williams awoke with a confused look on his face, he asked Williams to open the door or roll down the window. At that point, Hendrix said, he smelled intoxicants and called a fellow officer to arrest Williams for DWI.
Given these circumstances, we do not find any error by the trial judge in determining that Officer Hendrix's actions were justified as part of his community caretaking function and thus did not violate Williams's Fourth Amendment rights. We therefore hold that the trial court properly denied Williams's motion to suppress.
Affirmed.
Robbins and Roaf, JJ., agree.
|