 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Willoughby Hills v. Auletta9/30/2005
v. Jones, 11th Dist. No. 2003-T-0107, 2004-Ohio-6177, at ; State v. Stanberry, 11th Dist. No. 2002-L-028, 2003-Ohio-5700, at .
{ } Thus, when stopping a vehicle for safety reasons, the police officer must provide reasonable, articulable facts upon which to base his or her safety concerns. "Such a requirement allows a reviewing court to answer Terry's fundamental question in the affirmative: 'would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief" that the action taken was appropriate?'" Norman at 54, quoting Terry at 21-22.
{ } We first note that Officer Parmertor's initial stop was not predicated solely upon the ranger's statement. To the contrary, Officer Parmertor testified that he also stopped appellant's vehicle to simply re-rout the vehicle due to the road closing. There was no evidence that Officer Parmertor singled out appellant's vehicle or selectively chose appellant's vehicle to re-rout. Instead, Officer Parmertor testified that he stopped all vehicles at the intersection to explain that Chardon Road was closed and to assist in re-routing the vehicles. Given the totality of the circumstances, a police officer receiving a complaint of tailgating and, furthermore, giving safety instructions, provides reasonable articulable facts to make an initial stop.
{ } More importantly, Officer Parmertor provided reasonable, articulable facts which justified the initial stop as a safety precaution. Specifically, the facts established that a damaged electrical transformer had caused a fire which required the closing of Chardon Road. Officer Parmertor's initial attempts to re-route traffic by using traffic cones was unsuccessful, as multiple vehicles bypassed the cones in an attempt to traverse Chardon Road. As a result, Officer Parmertor personally stopped all vehicles to advise them of the road closing and to assist drivers with re-routing directions.
{ } Because Officer Parmertor's initial stop was justified to carry out community caretaking functions to enhance public safety, such stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, despite the absence of a traffic violation, the initial stop was proper.
{ } Based upon the foregoing analysis, appellant's sole assignment of error is without merit. We hereby affirm the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress.
WILLIAM M. O'NEILL, J., DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., concur.
|