 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Waldrip v. Commonwealth7/8/2005
AFFIRMING
BEFORE: BARBER AND SCHRODER, JUDGES; AND HUDDLESTON, SENIOR JUDGE.
In the early morning hours of December 6, 2004, Gordon Waldrip, a resident of Florida, was driving north on Kentucky Highway 121 in Calloway County. Just prior to 1:00 a.m., Kentucky State Trooper John Russell Boyd spotted Waldrip and began following him. Trooper Boyd decided to verify Waldrip's Florida license plate through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. Although Waldrip's license plate number was "G38FEV", Trooper Boyd misread it as "638FEV" when he called it into dispatch. When the dispatcher ran the number "638FEV" through NCIC, it was designated as "not on file". Upon learning this, Trooper Boyd decided to stop Waldrip since he suspected that either the automobile or the license plate was stolen.
After both vehicles pulled off the highway, Trooper Boyd approached the rear of Waldrip's automobile and noticed that the license plate was not "638FEV" but "G38FEV". Upon realizing his mistake, the officer decided to apologize to Waldrip for mistakenly detaining him. When Trooper Boyd approached Waldrip, he detected a strong odor of alcohol. Suspecting that Waldrip was under the influence of alcohol, Trooper Boyd detained Waldrip to ascertain whether he had been driving under the influence . After further investigation, Trooper Boyd arrested Waldrip for driving under the influence of alcohol.
In due course, Waldrip moved Calloway District Court to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the stop. Waldrip argued that Trooper Boyd had illegally detained him, thereby, violating his rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to Waldrip, when Trooper Boyd realized that he had misread the license plate number, he no longer harbored any reasonable and articulable suspicion that would justify continuing an investigatory stop. At that point, the stop violated the Fourth Amendment. And, Waldrip insisted, when Trooper Boyd's suspicions were dispelled, he was required to return to his cruiser and leave without speaking to him.
At the suppression hearing, Trooper Boyd testified to the facts set forth above. Waldrip did not offer any evidence, did not dispute the facts outlined in Trooper Boyd's testimony and did not challenge the officer's credibility. After Calloway District Court denied Waldrip's motion to suppress, he appealed to Calloway Circuit Court, which affirmed the district court's decision. Waldrip's motion for discretionary review was granted by this Court.
Waldrip relies heavily on State v. Kaufman.
In Kaufman, a police officer observed that one tail-lamp of Kaufman's automobile was brighter than the other. Thinking that Kaufman's brake-lamps were defective, the officer decided to stop the vehicle. As Kaufman pulled off the highway, the officer observed him use his turn signal and his brake-lamps, both of which were working properly. The officer approached Kaufman and explained his reasons for the stop, but he then asked to see Kaufman's driver's license and interrogated Kaufman without any suspicion that either Kaufman or his passenger were or had been engaged in criminal activity. After the officer discovered methamphetamine in the automobile, Kaufman was arrested. The Montana Supreme Court held that the officer had no reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain and interrogate Kaufman once he discovered that the vehicle's tail-lamps were not defective.
Waldrip also relies on another Montana case, State v. Lacasella. There a police officer observed Lacasella's vehicle and thought that he had detected a violation of Montana's statute requiring that a licen
Page 1 2 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|