 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Devils Lake v. Lawrence2/20/2002
ation after the vehicle was stopped?
A: Yeah. That's after I had a chance to talk to the RP.
(THE COURT: So, what was your understanding of what happened when you told the other officer to stop the vehicle?)
A: Um, at that point when I told Officer Toso to stop the vehicle, I was -- I really didn't have full understanding of what was going on. I just-
(THE COURT: Okay, it was just that this guy pointed, their involved, and you don't know what he said, though exactly?)
A: No. He indicated to me that this was the other party involved in this possible -- beginning of a fight.
(THE COURT: So, even to the best of your knowledge in the police report there was a possibility of a fight beginning? But, there was -- you had no information that there was a fight going on?)
A: No. I believe it came in as a fight was about to happen, and I didn't find out until -- cause it all happened at the same time-
(THE COURT: Sure)
A: -he pulled in, and he's indicating these guys are involved, check with them. I'll meet with this guy. We'll see what's going on.
[ ] Officer Toso activated his emergency lights and stopped the vehicle to investigate before it left the parking lot. Officer Toso noticed the driver of the vehicle, Lawrence, had an odor of alcohol and asked him to sit in the back of his patrol car while he questioned the passenger for his side of the story. Lawrence later failed field sobriety tests and was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Devils Lake Municipal Code § 10.46.030.
[ ] Upon appeal of his municipal court conviction to district court under N.D.C.C. § 40-18-19, Lawrence moved to suppress evidence and dismiss the charge, arguing the officers had no reasonable suspicion that he was involved in any type of criminal activity when Officer Toso stopped Lawrence's vehicle in the bar's parking lot. The district court granted the suppression motion and dismissed the charge with prejudice, reasoning:
When Officer Rose arrived on scene an individual standing in the parking lot of the bar told him, that the defendant's vehicle, which was driving out of the lot, was involved. There was nothing that the police officer saw or heard that would infer or suggest that the defendant was involved in criminal activity. The only reasonable inference that could be drawn from what the police officer heard and observed from dispatch, and the man standing outside the bar, is that one or both of the individuals in the vehicle leaving the parking lot were involved in an argument. Arguing is not a crime. Based on the statement given by the individual in the parking lot, Officer Rose radioed Officer Toso who had just arrived on scene, to stop the defendant's vehicle. Police had no articulated suspicion that Mr. Lawrence or his passenger were involved in or were going to be participating in any criminal activity.
[ ] The district court had jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06(4). The City's appeal is timely under N.D.R.App.P. 4(b). This Court has jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 6, and N.D.C.C. § 29-28-07(1).
II.
[ ] The City argues the district court erred in ruling the officers had no articulable and reasonable suspicion that Lawrence was involved in any criminal activity to justify the stop of his vehicle.
[ ] When reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we defer to the district court's findings of fact and resolve conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance. State v. Haverluk, 2000 ND 178, 7, 617 N.W.2d 652. We
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|