 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bronson v. State2/20/2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
No. 4532
Raymond H. Bronson pleaded no contest to driving while intoxicated (DWI), reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, he contends that District Court Judge Mark I. Wood clearly erred when he found that there was probable cause to stop Bronson for running a stop sign. Bronson primarily argues that photographs and a videotape of the scene presented at the evidentiary hearing refuted the state trooper's testimony that he saw Bronson run the sign. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Judge Wood's finding was not clearly erroneous. Therefore, we affirm.
According to testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing, Alaska State Trooper Albert Bell saw Bronson run a stop sign when Bronson was leaving a restaurant parking lot and pulling onto Chena Pump Road in Fairbanks on August 2, 2000, at about 11:30 p.m. Bell testified that he was traveling west on Chena Pump Road when he saw Bronson drive through the stop sign. Bell estimated that he was thirty feet away from the stop sign when he saw the violation. Bell testified that, "I observed a vehicle to drive up the hill and continue to make a right turn. Wheels never stopped. It just didn't stop."
Bronson testified that he had stopped at the sign. He said the stop sign was set back twenty feet from the fog line on Chena Pump Road and obscured by foliage, and he showed Judge Wood photos and a videotape of the scene to support his position. Bronson also presented testimony from David Comeau, a friend who had left the restaurant just prior to Bronson. Comeau testified that when he drove on to Chena Pump Road, he saw a trooper's vehicle parked on the side of the road a quarter mile from the intersection. Based on this evidence, Bronson argued that Trooper Bell could not have seen Bronson run the stop sign.
Judge Wood found that Bell's testimony that he was driving on Chena Pump Road when he saw Bronson run the stop sign was credible. Judge Wood found that Bell's version of events was consistent with Comeau's testimony because Bell could have started driving on Chena Pump Road after Comeau had passed him. Judge Wood also questioned Bronson's perception of what had happened because Bronson had been drinking. Judge Wood concluded that Bell had probable cause to stop Bronson for failing to stop at the sign and denied Bronson's suppression motion.
On appeal, Bronson argues that the evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing showed that Bell could not have seen the stop sign from where Comeau said Bell was parked or from where Bell said he was driving.
The existence of probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact. The district court, as the trier of fact, weighs the credibility of the evidence and the witnesses and resolves any conflicts and inconsistencies in that evidence. This court upholds the district court's factual findings absent clear error - that is, unless this court is left "with a definite and firm conviction on the entire record that a mistake has been made." This court reviews de novo the legal issue of whether those facts support probable cause.
We have reviewed the record, including the photos and the videotape. Based on our review, we conclude that Judge Wood's findings are not clearly erroneous. These findings support the conclusion that Bell had probable cause to stop Bronson for a traffic violation.
On appeal, Bronson does not separately contest the DWI investigation that Bell began after he stopped Bronson. We note, however, that during a lawful traffic stop, police can - if they observe evidence that the driver may be intoxicated - sh
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|