 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bell11/8/2005
affic stop by Officer Massey because Officer Massey lacked reasonable suspicion to perform the stop." We have thoroughly examined the record and we do not see any findings as to whether there was reasonable suspicion for the stop. The trial court appears to have dismissed the indictment because both officers were not present at the hearing and failed to rule on the suppression issue. Although the trial court does have the discretion to dismiss an indictment, the trial court cannot abuse that discretion.
We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the indictment without addressing the merits of the defendant's motion to suppress. Whether the stop was based on reasonable suspicion will dictate whether the stop and ensuing arrest were legal. Such a finding by the trial court is a necessary precursor to any further determination regarding the suppression of the evidence and dismissal of the indictment. Moreover, the initial stop was made by Officer Massey, who was available to testify. Accordingly, it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to dismiss the indictment without addressing the reasonable suspicion issue as the State was prepared to present with Officer Massey's testimony. We therefore reverse the order of the trial court, dismissing the indictment against the defendant, and remand for the trial court to make findings of fact regarding the reasonableness of the stop. If the trial court finds the stop was not based on reasonable suspicion, then the motion to suppress should be granted and charges dismissed. See State v. Phillips, 30 S.W.3d 372, 373 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (noting the substantive effect of the trial court's decision to grant a motion to suppress is dismissal of the indictment). If the trial court finds the stop was based on reasonable suspicion, then the motion to suppress should be denied and the case should proceed. Because we have determined that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the indictment without first addressing the merits of the defendant's motion to suppress, we need not address whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|