 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hart3/27/2002
o be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const. amend. IV.
Evidence obtained in violation of this provision is inadmissible in a prosecution, no matter how relevant or probative the evidence may be. State v. Manna, 534 N.W.2d 642, 643-44 (Iowa 1995).
The Fourth Amendment requires a police officer must have reasonable cause to stop an individual for investigatory purposes. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 906 (1968); State v. Tompkins, 507 N.W.2d 736, 738 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). An automobile stop is subject to these Fourth Amendment protections and will be upheld only when it is reasonable. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1772, 135 L. Ed. 2d 89, 95 (1996).
When a stop is challenged on the basis that reasonable cause did not exist, the State must show that the stopping officer had "specific and articulable cause to support a reasonable belief that criminal activity may have occurred." . . . If the State fails to meet its burden, the evidence obtained as a result of the stop must be suppressed. State v. Lamp, 322 N.W.2d 48, 51 (Iowa 1982) (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Heminover, 619 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa 2000).
The only issue on appeal is whether Trooper Moore, based on his observations of Hart's driving, had specific and articulable cause to support a reasonable belief criminal activity may have occurred. We determine whether a police officer's observations of a vehicle weaving within its own lane of traffic give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify an investigatory stop based on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. State v. Otto, 566 N.W.2d 509, 511 (Iowa 1997).
As set forth above, Moore testified at the suppression hearing that he saw Hart cross the dividing line into the other lane and then correct back. Trooper Moore then turned on his in-car camera and observed further "brief weaving within the lane" which was recorded on his videotape. We agree with the district court that Moore's description of Hart's driving as "brief weaving" is consistent with the driving reflected at various points on the videotape footage from Moore's camera.
We conclude the facts and circumstances surrounding the stop of Hart's vehicle provided reasonable suspicion for the belief that criminal activity was afoot. Trooper Moore testified he observed Hart cross the dividing line into the other lane, come back into his own lane, and then continue to weave within his own lane. Although the videotape was not turned on in time to show Hart crossing the dividing line, what it does show is consistent with the periodic weaving described by Moore. Based upon these facts and circumstances we find the stop of Hart's vehicle was justified. See Otto, 566 N.W.2d at 511.
We agree with the district court that the method in which Hart was operating his vehicle and the time and place in question was sufficiently unusual and erratic to justify the officer's reasonable belief criminal activity may have been occurring. We conclude the district court correctly denied Hart's motion to suppress and accordingly affirm Hart's convictions.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|