 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Semaken v. State4/10/2002
Semaken's case is resolved by our decisions in Crauthers v. State and Ozhuwan v. State. In Crauthers, a trooper contacted the defendant after seeing him stop his vehicle thirty feet short of a yield sign and roll down his window. Crauthers said he was trying to attract the attention of his boss, who was driving behind him. But the trooper thought Crauthers wanted directions or other help, so he pulled up behind Crauthers's vehicle and activated his overhead lights. We held that this stop was justified because the trooper reasonably interpreted the defendant's conduct as a request for assistance.
In Ozhuwan, we reached the opposite conclusion, holding that a trooper was not justified in stopping two vehicles parked near a boat launch in a campground based on his generalized concern for the safety of the occupants and his knowledge that minors used the area to drink alcohol. We noted that the trooper would have been justified in approaching the vehicles non-intrusively to check on the occupants' safety. But we held that the intrusive stop - the trooper had blocked the vehicles' exits, turned on his high-beam headlights and overhead lights, and approached one vehicle and shined his flashlight in the window - was not justified because the trooper had "observed no actual indication of any problem and had received no request for assistance." In reaching this conclusion, we emphasized that the trooper was acting in part to investigate a potential crime.
Although Semaken did not ask for help, Trooper Acquistapace observed specific circumstances that supported her conclusion that Semaken might need assistance. Trooper Acquistapace watched Semaken's vehicle gradually slow and then "drift off to the side of the road and stop ," a circumstance the trooper reasonably concluded was consistent with Semaken having vehicle trouble or running out of gas. The road was not well-traveled on week nights, there was no gas station nearby, and the closest pay phone was one-half mile away. There were no apparent reasons for Semaken's stop. Moreover, Trooper Acquistapace did not suspect criminal conduct and only approached Semaken to see if he needed help. This court has never required a life-threatening emergency before a police officer can offer aid to a motorist. Nor must an officer affirmatively negate all other possible explanations before assuming that a motorist needs help. Given this evidence, we agree with Judge Funk's finding that a welfare check was warranted based on Trooper Acquistapace's reasonable belief that Semaken might need police assistance.
Conclusion
The district court's order is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|