 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Adams5/2/2005
to the warrant requirement. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d at 629. Two such exceptions to the warrant requirement include a search incident to arrest and a search conducted pursuant to consent. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973); see also New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 457 (1981) (discussing the parameters of a search incident to arrest). In order to justify a search incident to arrest, the searching officer must have probable cause to arrest the individual in question. See Belton, 453 U.S. at 457. Probable cause to arrest exists if the officer has "facts and circumstances within knowledge and of which had reasonably trustworthy information . . . sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the [individual in question] had committed or was committing an offense." Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964).
The defendant's certified question challenges her warrantless arrest. The defendant argues that she did not consent to the sobriety testing and that the physical trauma caused by the accident prevented her ability to perform on the tests. In responding to the defendant's 911 call, Deputy Todd was lawfully present at the scene of the accident. His suspicion that the defendant was intoxicated justified the brief detention of the defendant to confirm that suspicion. The defendant's consent was not a prerequisite to Deputy Todd's ability to perform sobriety testing. The defendant's admission of coherence to paramedics at the scene dispels her argument that she was incapable of performing the field sobriety testing. When the defendant failed various field sobriety tests, Deputy Todd's suspicion ripened into probable cause to arrest for D.U.I. Thus, we conclude that the arrest was lawful.
Once Deputy Todd placed the defendant under arrest, he effectuated a search of her purse, contact lens case, and vehicle. As a search incident to a lawful arrest, the defendant's consent to search was immaterial. At the suppression hearing, the trial court stated, "really its undisputed that the search was incident to a lawful arrest." We agree and consequently conclude that this appeal is without merit.
Conclusion
Based upon the record and the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
|