 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Phillips3/15/2002
{ } Defendant-appellant Mark Phillips appeals from his conviction and sentence, following a no-contest plea, for Driving Under the Influence . Phillips contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress, because the police officer who stopped him had no reasonable, articulable suspicion justifying a stop. We conclude, from the totality of circumstances, which includes a report by an identified witness that Phillips appeared intoxicated, as well as the police officer's own observations of erratic driving and, earlier, of the defendant, that the officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion justifying a stop. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
I.
{ } One evening in early September, 2000, at about 6:00 p.m., Beavercreek Police Officer Matt Barber was called to a car wash. Barber spoke to the car wash manager, who reported that a person he thought was intoxicated had picked up his car, after it was washed, and that he, the manager, thought this person might have parked his car at Wallaby's. The manager described the car as a red Camaro with a raised spoiler in back. Barber saw a red Camaro with a raised spoiler in the parking lot at Wallaby's. Barber drove over to Wallaby's, and ran the license plate. It came back to Phillips.
{ } Barber and his trainee then left that parking lot, parked nearby, and began completing miscellaneous paperwork. Soon after, they were dispatched to Wallaby's on the report of an intoxicated person. The manager of that establishment pointed out a "barely conscious" person. This person was not Phillips, but was in Phillips' party. Barber then made contact with Phillips:
{ } So when you went to make contact, you observed the identified as Mr. Phillips?
{ } I saw Mr. Phillips, who fit the description of what the manager had given, wearing a green shirt, blue jeans. I made contact with him at that point.
{ } When you made contact with him, what observations did you note?
{ } I could see that his eyes were glassy. And I could smell an odor of alcoholic beverage from across the table. I was standing across the table from him.
{ } Did you speak to him? Did he speak back to you?
{ } Yes. I informed him of the situation at the Auto Butler, that we received a call and what that call was. And based on the call and what I had noticed about him, that he should not be out driving until he had a chance to sober up or otherwise.
{ } When you made your contact with Mr. Phillips, was he standing at that time?
{ } No. He was sitting at a table.
{ } So you didn't have a chance to observe him standing?
{ } No, not at that point.
{ } You did observe his speech?
{ } Yes. I spoke with him.
{ } Did you notice anything about his speech when you spoke to him?
{ } It was slurred somewhat.
{ } Barber and his trainee then dealt with the intoxicated patron, but remained in a parking lot in the area, where they could see the parking lot of Wallaby's. They received a radio dispatch advising them that Phillips, according to the manager of Wallaby's, was getting ready to leave. They saw the red Camaro pulling out of its parking spot. What happened thereafter was described by Barber as follows:
{ } After you observed the car pulling out of Wallaby's, did you make any other observations of the car?
{ } Yes. As it drove past us where we were sitting, I saw that Mr. Phillips was the driver. At that point, it appeared as if he was the only occupant of the vehicle.
{ } At that
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|