 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. State6/1/2005
called the police. An officer, about ten minutes later, observed the man in his vehicle, driving in the correct lane and slightly below the speed limit. He followed him to a convenience store. The officer watched as the man staggered slightly upon entering the store and when he came out with a 12-pack of beer, the officer spoke with him. At that time, the officer noticed other signs of intoxication (bloodshot, glossy eyes, slurry speech and strong alcohol smell) and placed him under arrest for DUI.
Similarly, if an officer is performing an investigation of unusual and suspicious behavior reported to him and finds evidence of contraband unrelated to the reported suspicious behavior, there is no cause for suppression of the contraband. In Atterberry v. State, 1986 OK CR 147, 726 P.2d 898, a jogger reported to a police officer that a man was following her in his pickup truck and staring at her as she jogged in a park. The officer stopped the man in question to investigate. The man then dropped a white package to the ground which, upon examination, contained a white substance which the officer determined was a narcotic. The man moved to suppress the methamphetamine on the ground of illegal arrest, stating that the police lacked probable cause to stop and arrest him. The court held that the police have "... a right and a duty to investigate unusual or suspicious circumstances." Further, if, at the time of arrest, facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge would be sufficient to warrant a prudent person believing that an offense had been or was being committed, probable cause is established and the arrest is lawful." Id. at 3, p. 899.
Officer Harwell had reasonable cause to follow, based on the information from his fellow officers. In addition, he testified that he was looking for probable cause to stop Smith's vehicle. To make the question clear, DPS's lawyer asked the trial court, "For purpose of the record, Judge, so I make sure your (sic) clear what your ruling is, you're ruling that the officer had insufficient grounds to make a traffic stop, is that correct?" The Court replied in the affirmative.
Municipalities, such as the City of Edmond, may enact and enforce ordinances in conformance with the Oklahoma Highway Safety Code, 47 O.S. 2001 §1-101 et seq. "The municipal governing body may establish ordinances regulations governing the operation of motor vehicles and traffic upon the roads and streets within the municipality in the manner provided by, and not inconsistent with, state law." 11 O.S. 2001 §22-117(A). The City of Edmond, by ordinance 10.32.060, requires a turn signal to make a left or right turn at an intersection:
No person shall turn a vehicle at an intersection or turn a vehicle to enter a private road or driveway or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway, without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided.
This was the traffic violation for which Smith was stopped. However, 47 O.S. 2001 § 11-604 (A) states:
No person shall turn a vehicle at an intersection, a public or private road, or a driveway, unless the vehicle is in proper position upon the roadway as required in Section 11-601 of this title, or move right or left upon a roadway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety. No person shall so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal as provided in subsection B of the section, in the event any other traffic may be affected by such movement. (emphasis added).
Edmond's ordinance does not comport with the Act. "There is much support in the case law for the proposition that an ordinance which p
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|