 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hill6/23/2005
at the circumstances surrounding the stop. Officer Chernisky recognized the juvenile in the car, who was out well past curfew. He recognized Zarnesky and knew he was under 21 years of age and was not the parent or guardian of the minor. Officer Chernisky had prior dealings with both the juvenile and Zarnesky. The officer knew where this minor lived and correctly assumed that was where Zarnesky was headed. The third occupant was in the backseat. As it turned out, the backseat passenger, Hill, was also known to the officer from past encounters, and he knew Hill was under the age of 21.
{ } Viewing the officer's actions in light of his experience and training, I find the officer had a reasonable articulable suspicion that at least two of the occupants, possibly three, were violating the law. To suggest that an officer must be able to discern the age of each occupant to make sure no one fits the exception before having the right to investigate creates an unreasonable and unenforceable standard. It was reasonable for an officer under these facts to conduct an investigative stop. The majority's view that the third occupant could have been the juvenile's parent or guardian is not reasonable under these facts.
{ } This is not a situation where the police officer saw a juvenile in a car and, without anything more, pulled the car over.
This officer saw and knew two of the three occupants and believed they were violating the law. Therefore, the investigative stop was reasonable and valid.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|