 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Whitman12/5/2005
FACTS
The following evidence was presented at the suppression hearing and subsequent bench trial. Officer Coleman Womack of the Metropolitan Police Department testified that on March 19, 2003, at approximately 2:24 a.m., while on patrol, he observed the defendant, driving a 2001 Chevrolet Cavalier. After pulling behind the Cavalier, he ran a computer check on the Cavalier's license plate from the laptop computer inside his patrol car. The information from the computer check indicated that the license plate on the Cavalier belonged to another vehicle. Based upon this information, he activated his blue lights and initiated a traffic stop. After the defendant pulled over, his Cavalier started to roll backwards towards Officer Womack's patrol car but stopped before it struck the patrol car.
Officer Womack testified that he approached the defendant's vehicle and informed the defendant that he was stopped because the "tags" on his vehicle belonged to a different vehicle. The defendant then responded, telling Officer Womack that the tags belonged on the Cavalier. Officer Womack stated that at this point, he noticed an odor of alcohol coming from the defendant's person. Officer Womack also noticed that the defendant's eyes were "real watery," and his speech was slurred. Officer Womack described the defendant as "talking really loud" and acting "belligerent."
Officer Womack testified that the defendant produced his driver's license and vehicle registration for the Cavalier, which confirmed that the tags were lawfully on the Cavalier. However, based upon his observations of the defendant, Officer Womack asked the defendant to perform some field sobriety tests. As to the "walk and turn" test, Officer Womack said the defendant failed the test because he missed the heal to toe step several times, stumbled, held his hands out like a bird, and took the wrong number of steps. As to the "one leg stand" test, Officer Womack said the defendant again held his arms out like a bird and hopped around several times. Officer Womack explained that the defendant's actions when taking these two tests indicated impairment because they demonstrated the defendant's lack of coordination and inability to follow instructions. Officer Womack stated that based upon the defendant's poor performance of the tests, he arrested the defendant for DUI and explained the implied consent law to him. Officer Womack then called Officer Kevin Lovell to measure the defendant's blood- alcohol level with a breathalyzer machine. Officer Womack then described the defendant's attitude as "very disrespectful, very uncooperative, hard to get information from, just really hard to deal with the entire time he was in my custody."
On cross-examination, Officer Womack admitted that he observed no bad driving or vehicle equipment violations before conducting the traffic stop. Officer Womack stated that he stopped the defendant's vehicle based solely upon the information he received from his computer check of the vehicle's tags. Officer Womack also acknowledged that the defendant denied drinking. Officer Womack further acknowledged that he did not see any evidence of alcohol in the vehicle. Officer Womack conceded that he formed an opinion as to the defendant's impairment prior to asking the defendant to perform the field sobriety tests. When questioned about the "walk and turn" test, Officer Womack could not recall how many indicators were necessary to indicate impairment.
Officer Kevin Lovell testified that he responded to Officer Womack's request for breath-alcohol testing of the defendant. He explained that he was certified and trained to measure the concentration of alcohol in the defendant's breath u
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|