 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Freeman6/10/2004
in the face of oncoming traffic, smelled an odor of intoxicants coming from the car, observed that defendant's speech was slightly slurred, and noted that her eyes were watery and bloodshot and did not appear to focus. Those findings are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous.
9. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the exit order was reasonable under the circumstances is the legal question that we review de novo. An order to exit one's vehicle after the initial investigatory stop is a further seizure within the meaning of Chapter I, Article Eleven of the Vermont Constitution. State v. Jewett, 148 Vt. 324, 330, 532 A.2d 958, 961 (1987). In Sprague, we explained that "[t]he facts sufficient to justify an exit order need be no more than an objective circumstance that would cause a reasonable officer to believe it was necessary to protect the officer's, or another's, safety or to investigate a suspected crime." Sprague, 2003 VT 20, at 20. In Sprague, we held that the record evidence in that case provided no objective basis for ordering defendant to leave his vehicle because the officer could not articulate any safety concerns or any suspicion of a criminal offense that required further investigation. Id. at 22. Here, however, Trooper Carbo adduced objective facts that justified his suspicion that defendant was driving under the influence; it was thus reasonable to require her to leave her vehicle to conduct further investigation. The trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress was not error.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Vermont DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|