 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Williams4/5/2005
On July 12, 2002, Chattanooga Police Officer Christopher Sims, while on routine patrol, observed a 1978 Oldsmobile stopped on East 18th Street in Chattanooga, blocking a lane of travel on a two-lane residential street. The engine was idling, but the vehicle was not moving. According to Officer Sims, he stopped behind the vehicle and turned on his blue lights; he explained at the suppression hearing that he activated his emergency lights to signal to the occupants that he was present and then walked toward the vehicle in order to determine why it was stopped. As Officer Sims approached the driver's side window, he smelled alcohol on the defendant and asked him to perform field sobriety tests. The defendant performed one test but refused to do the one-leg stand, claiming he was injured. He was subsequently arrested for obstructing traffic and driving under the influence .
Jason Brooks, who was an employee of the defendant, testified for the defense at the suppression hearing. A passenger in the car on the day of the arrest, he claimed that he and the defendant were on the way to the defendant's residence when they saw the officer approach their car from the front instead of the rear, as asserted by Officer Sims. He contended that the officer blocked the path of their car and then turned on his blue lights. Brooks testified that the defendant was not stopped but conceded that he had been driving very slowly when the officer turned onto the street. According to Brooks, the defendant merely pulled his car over to let the officer drive by. He acknowledged that the officer stepped out of his patrol car, approached their vehicle, and asked, "Why you stopped in the middle of the road or pulled over?"
At the hearing, the defendant denied that he was stopped but admitted that he was driving toward his residence "very slowly" when he saw the officer turn onto the street in front of him and activate his blue lights. He claimed that he pulled over as a courtesy to the officer and contended that the officer stopped in his path. According to the defendant, the officer approached the driver's door and asked "why [they were] stopped in the middle of the street." The defendant testified that he first asked the officer why he had been stopped and then explained that he had pulled his vehicle over to the side of the street to allow him to pass.
At the conclusion of the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court observed as follows:
The police officer testified it was a two lane road . . . and that [the defendant] was not blocking any traffic. I find under either scenario, either the State's version or the defendant's version of the facts, that there is no reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime had occurred, was occurring, or was about to occur in this case. The motion to suppress is sustained.
The state initially sought and received permission to appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9 because the trial court had not actually dismissed the underlying indictment following the order of suppression. By virtue of a miscommunication between the District Attorney's Office and the Attorney General's Office, the state, however, failed to file an application for appeal under Rule 9 within 30 days, as required, and later chose to proceed under Rule 3. See Tenn. R. App. P. 9(b). Its rationale was that the substantive effect of the trial court's order of suppression of the evidence was a dismissal of the indictment:
In criminal actions an appeal as of right by the state lies only from an order or judgment entered by a trial court from which an appeal lies to the Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals: (1) the substantive effec
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|