 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Devils Lake v. Lawrence2/20/2002
d not give officer reasonable suspicion to stop defendant in brown Jeep, because officer had no reason to suspect that a misdemeanor involving personal or property damage had been committed as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1 to justify temporary detention). An officer's reasonable and articulable suspicion that an individual has committed the offense of disorderly conduct is sufficient to justify a temporary detention of that individual for investigative purposes.
C.
[ ] In this case, Officers Rose and Toso received a dispatch about a "fight that was going to begin" at a bar. Physical fights normally do not occur spontaneously. A law enforcement officer could reasonably infer and deduce from this dispatch, at the very least, the possibility that someone at the bar had engaged in, or was engaging in, "violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior" with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person within the meaning of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31-01(1)(a), to necessitate a call for police assistance. When Officer Rose arrived at the bar, Houle immediately informed him the two men leaving in the vehicle were "the ones you've got to talk too " about their "verbal altercation." Houle's indications to Officer Rose that the altercation was "verbal," rather than physical, did not rule out the possibility that a violation of the disorderly conduct statute had occurred.
[ ] In 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.4(g) n.262 (1996), the author addresses the situation when police officers respond to a call for help and then see one or more persons leaving the area:
hough it may not be more probable than not that a crime has occurred in such a situation, given the possibility that the call is a prank or is unrelated to criminal activity, it should be permissible to stop those fleeing the area while more specific information is obtained. Bell v. United States, 280 F.2d 717 (D.C.Cir. 1960). This is so "even though it again was perfectly possible that no one present was guilty of wrong doing, and certain that not all of the persons were guilty of the commission of a crime." United States v. Bonanno, 180 F. Supp. 71 (S.D.N.Y. 1960).
Given the probability of a disorderly conduct violation occurring at the bar and the identification of the alleged perpetrators by a possible victim, the officers in this case had as much, if not more, justification for the investigative stop than was present in Ovind.
[ ] We conclude, under the totality of the circumstances, Officers Rose and Toso had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that Lawrence had been involved in unlawful activity, and the officers were justified in stopping his vehicle to freeze the situation for further investigation. The district court erred in granting Lawrence's suppression motion and in dismissing the driving under the influence of alcohol charge against him.
III.
[ ] We reverse the orders and remand for further proceedings.
[ ]Dale V. Sandstrom
William A. Neumann
Mary Muehlen Maring
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
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.
|
|