 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Pettitt11/9/2005
III. Discussion
We begin by noting that the reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing requisite to justify the detention of Pettitt's vehicle may not be inchoate or unparticularized; rather the circumstances must provide an objective basis for the officer's suspicion of wrongdoing. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 329, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 2416, 110 L.Ed. 2d 301, 308 (1990). Moreover, the suspicion of wrongdoing must be derived from conduct and observations made prior to the decision to detain. United States v. Yang, 345 F.3d 650, 655 (8th Cir. 2003).
The detaining officer testified at trial that (1) he decided to stop Pettitt's vehicle based solely on his observation of Pettitt's unsteady entrance to his vehicle, and (2) he did not find the witness to be reliable. Pettitt argues the video recording made of the officers' observations of Pettitt's movement between the convenience store and his vehicle provides no evidence that Pettitt was intoxicated. Because the detaining officer testified he relied only on his own observations in deciding to detain the vehicle, Pettitt contends reasonable suspicion was lacking. We disagree.
We do agree with Pettitt's assessment that the video recording, when viewed in isolation, does not depict conduct that would indicate the man observed was intoxicated, even to a trained officer. However, our review for reasonable suspicion justifying an investigatory stop is not limited to those subjective factors relied upon by the detaining officer. See State v. Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Iowa 1997) (stating that the existence of reasonable suspicion is judged by an objective standard, incorporating all facts available to the officer at the time of the decision). We may also consider the information conveyed to the officer by the witness.
See State v. Walshire, 634 N.W.2d 625, 630 (Iowa 2001) (holding that, at least with regard to drunk driving investigatory detentions, reliable reports from citizens witnessing the suspicious circumstances may suffice for reasonable suspicion, even where the detaining officer does not independently observe any suspicious behavior). This is true despite the fact the officer subjectively believed the witness was not particularly reliable. State v. Predka, 555 N.W.2d 202, 205 (Iowa 1996). We believe the witness's phone call alone was sufficiently reliable to justify the investigatory stop in this case. The witness accurately identified Pettitt's vehicle and license plate number, and accurately placed the vehicle at the convenience store where it and Pettitt were observed by the officers. The behavior described in the phone call is objectively consistent with intoxication, and when the vehicle was operated, reasonable suspicion transferred to the vehicle's driver.
Because the information conveyed by the phone call alone was sufficient to justify the investigatory stop of Pettitt's vehicle, we conclude Pettitt's constitutional rights were not violated thereby. The district court properly denied Pettitt's motion to suppress, and consequently we affirm Pettitt's conviction for operating while intoxicated, first offense.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|