 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Semaken v. State4/10/2002
NOTICE
Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited for any proposition of law, nor as an example of the proper resolution of any issue.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
No. 4559
While driving in Fairbanks at night, Alaska State Trooper Susan Acquistapace saw Francis P. Semaken's truck gradually drift to the side of Ballaine Road and come to a stop on the shoulder in a wooded area. Trooper Acquistapace pulled behind Semaken's truck and turned on her overhead lights because she thought he had run -1- 4559out of gas or was having vehicle trouble. As a result of this contact, Semaken was charged with driving while intoxicated, driving with a suspended license, and fourth-degree misconduct involving weapons. Semaken moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the stop was illegal because there was no basis for concluding that he needed assistance. Because the record supports the district court's finding that Trooper Acquistapace was justified in stopping to check on Semaken's welfare, we affirm the court's order denying Semaken's motion to dismiss.
Facts and proceedings
At about 10:00 p.m. on September 9, 2000, Trooper Acquistapace was driving behind a pickup truck on Ballaine Road in Fairbanks. The truck gradually slowed and then "just kind of drifted off to the side of the road and stopped." The truck stopped on the shoulder of the road in a wooded area. Trooper Acquistapace estimated that the closest phone was about one-half mile away and the closest gas station some six to eight miles. Although Ballaine is a major roadway, she knew it is not well traveled on week nights. There were no northern lights, nearby houses, mailboxes, or other obvious explanations for the stop. Thinking that the driver might have run out of gas or might have other vehicle problems, Trooper Acquistapace pulled behind the truck and, for safety reasons, activated her overhead lights. She saw Semaken get out of the truck. He was swaying, and when she made contact with him, she realized he had been drinking.
Semaken was charged with driving while intoxicated, driving with a suspended license, and fourth-degree misconduct involving weapons. Semaken moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the stop was illegal because there was no indication that he needed aid. After an evidentiary hearing, District Court Judge Raymond M. Funk denied the motion. Judge Funk found that the stop was justified because the trooper actually, and reasonably, believed that Semaken might need help.
Semaken pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and driving with a suspended license, reserving his right to appeal the order denying his motion to dismiss.
Discussion
On appeal, Semaken renews his claim that the stop was illegal because he did not ask for help and Trooper Acquistapace could not have reasonably believed help was needed, given that she knew of no specific problem with him or his car, it was not dangerously cold, and there were homes and a restaurant in the area.
Police officers, as community caretakers, are justified in conduct that would amount to an investigative stop if they are aware of "at least some specific circumstances supporting a reasonable belief that the occupants of a vehicle need assistance." The state need not show that it was more probable than not that the occupants needed help, "only that there was a substantial possibility that police assistance was required."
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|