 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fields v. State3/13/2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
No. 4544
Wendolyn Fields pleaded no contest to driving while intoxicated (DWI), reserving her right to appeal the denial of her two motions to suppress. On appeal, she contends that Magistrate David S. Landry erred when he found that (1) there was reasonable suspicion for police to contact Fields as she sat in her parked vehicle, and (2) that during this contact, the police were justified in asking her if she had been drinking, and then conducting a DWI investigation. Because we conclude that Magistrate Landry could find that there was reasonable suspicion to contact Fields initially, and that during that contact the police were justified in asking her whether she had been drinking, we affirm.
Facts and Proceedings
Two Soldotna police officers saw a woman - Fields - in the driver's seat of a vehicle parked with its engine running and the driver's door open. A man was kneeling on the ground next to this door and leaning into the vehicle, draped over Fields. The police pulled up, turned on their emergency lights, and contacted the duo. At the conclusion of this contact, the police arrested Fields for DWI.
After a complaint was filed, Fields moved twice to suppress evidence. She first challenged the initial stop. After this motion was denied, she filed a second motion that challenged the officer's justification for beginning a DWI investigation. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on each motion. After each hearing, Magistrate Landry issued form orders denying the motion to suppress. He made no findings during or after either hearing.
Discussion
The First Motion to Suppress
Fields first moved to suppress based on her claim that the stop was unlawful. At the evidentiary hearing, the arresting officer, Soldotna Police Officer Gregory R. Landeis, who then had eighteen to nineteen years of experience as a police officer, primarily as a patrol officer, testified that at 1:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning he was en route to assist another police officer who was conducting an unrelated traffic stop. Landeis said that he and his police trainee, Officer Tobin Brennan, drove by an apartment complex and saw a vehicle in the complex parking lot. This vehicle drew Landeis's attention because the vehicle was running, a woman was in the driver's seat, the driver's door was open, and a man was kneeling at the driver's door leaning into the vehicle draped over the woman.
Landeis could not determine what was happening, but testified that based on his experience, he thought that the activity was suspicious. He testified that he was particularly concerned by the parties' positions, by the fact that it was a man on a woman, and by the time of night. Based on his experience and training, he said he thought it possible that a crime was occurring. He suspected that it could be a domestic assault, a more general domestic violence situation, a sexual assault, or a drug transaction. He also thought that either party could need medical attention, that the man might have had a heart attack, or that he might even be dead. Landeis testified that he decided to check on the situation because of the late hour and the possibility that the man was restraining the woman. Although he wanted to make sure that no crime was being committed, he also wanted to ensure that neither person needed assistance.
Landeis testified that he could not tell what was going on until he had walked up to the driver's door and contacted the two people. Once he made contact at the driver's door, he could see that there was nothing outwardly wrong - that is, he could see that there were no injuries and
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|