 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Seaman12/6/2005
ping and investigating the possibility that Seaman's car was disabled or that Seaman was experiencing medical or physical problems.
The District Court determined that Officer Armstrong had an objectively reasonable concern that Seaman might be stranded or otherwise in need of assistance when he first saw Seaman's parked car. However, the court also determined that when Officer Armstrong pulled up behind Seaman's car, he did not observe anything that created an objectively reasonable suspicion that Seaman was then in need of assistance. Hence, the court concluded that all observations and evidence obtained after Officer Armstrong actually made contact with Seaman at her car door were the fruit of an illegal seizure of her person. The court based its decision primarily upon its interpretation of the videotape, focusing on the 45-second interval between the time the video camera was activated by Officer Armstrong and the time he started asking Seaman if she was okay.
The District Court further noted that Officer Armstrong saw that Seaman's car was running and that he did not see any sign of distress or anything unusual or wrong with Seaman or the car. The court made much of the fact that Seaman walked around her car, looked at Officer Armstrong, but did not gesture to him that she needed or desired assistance. However, neither did Seaman gesture to Officer Armstrong that she did not need or desire assistance. Seaman could very well have gotten back into her car out of the cold and the wind intending to wait for Officer Armstrong to approach her.
The District Court also hinged its decision on the fact that the videotape showed that Seaman got back into her car, put on her seat belt and activated her left turn signal. The court determined that this should have indicated to Officer Armstrong that both Seaman and her car were okay. However, Officer Armstrong testified that he did not see Seaman put on her seat belt and that he was not sure if he noticed at that time that Seaman had turned on her turn signal or if he only noticed that the turn signal was on when he viewed the videotape sometime later in preparation for writing his report. Furthermore, while the fact that Seaman was getting ready to drive off may have assured Officer Armstrong that Seaman's car was in working order, it would not necessarily assure him that Seaman was not experiencing disorientation or other medical or physical problems. Until he was standing next to her car, Seaman did not even acknowledge Officer Armstrong's presence or the fact that his patrol car was parked behind her with its lights flashing. This lack of reaction may also have been indicative of disorientation or other medical or physical problems.
The third prong of the Lovegren test provides that once "the officer is assured that the citizen is not in peril or is no longer in need of assistance . . . then any actions beyond that constitute a seizure . . . ." Lovegren, 25 (emphasis added). Hence, the resolution of the suppression issue turns on the point at which Officer Armstrong had sufficient assurances concerning Seaman's need for assistance. We also indicated in Lovegren that it would be a dereliction of an officer's duty to walk away from an uncertain situation in which a motorist may be in need of help. Lovegren, 26. Thus, the duty to investigate resides with the officer and until the officer is assured that the citizen is not in peril, the stop does not amount to a seizure.
In the instant case, Officer Armstrong testified that his uncertainty about Seaman's welfare was not resolved by his observations of Seaman as she walked around her car and got back inside. Consequently, it would have been a derelictio
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|