 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fields v. State3/13/2002
trol of the vehicle and its engine was running, Fields's statement that she had been drinking prompted Landeis to begin a DWI investigation.
Although given the opportunity, Fields's attorney did not inquire into any of Landeis's questions, observations, or actions after Fields admitted that she had been drinking. After the evidence closed, the attorney took the position that Landeis had "launche into a DWI investigation effectively expanding the scope of the investigatory stop without any reasonable basis to do so." Focusing on Landeis's prior knowledge of Fields, her attorney argued that " either of reasons [Landeis articulated] for suspecting DWI are sufficient to support an investigatory stop for the purposes of DWI." Her attorney concluded that "the continued investigation of Ms. Fields once the welfare check was completed exceeded the scope of the stop and impermissible and . . . the evidence needs to be suppressed on that basis." In other words, Fields argued that it had been an unlawful extension of the initial stop for Landeis to ask Fields if she had been drinking. The State, however, pointed out that the initial contact, including this question, had lasted less than a minute. The State argued that based on the circumstances, and in light of what Landeis knew when he recognized Fields, it was proper to ask her if she had been drinking, and that once Fields admitted she had been drinking the DWI investigation was warranted. Magistrate Landry made no findings (nor did Fields ask for any), and later, without comment, denied the second motion.
We conclude based on this record, and on the arguments presented to Magistrate Landry, that Landeis was authorized to ask Fields if she had been drinking. As we concluded above, Landeis had reasonable suspicion to perform an investigatory stop based on his observations of Fields and the man who was draped over her in the front seat. Because Landeis had legitimately stopped Fields, he was entitled to ask her if she had been drinking. When Fields admitted she had been drinking, Landeis was justified in shifting the focus of the investigatory stop to a DWI investigation. Accordingly, we find no error.
On appeal, Fields argues that the police did not have probable cause to arrest her for DWI. But from our examination of the record, Fields did not litigate this question at the evidentiary hearings or obtain a ruling from the district court on this issue. Accordingly, we conclude that Fields did not preserve this claim.
Conclusion
The district court's decisions are AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|