 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Yazzie6/9/2005
OPINION
(For Official Publication)
Before Judges Jackson, Orme, and Thorne.
Clifton Yazzie appeals from his convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol, operating a motor vehicle without operator's security, and driving on a suspended or revoked operator's license. Because we conclude that Yazzie's detention was not supported by a reasonable articulable suspicion of wrongdoing on his part, we reverse.
BACKGROUND
On October 15, 2003, Chief Mike Halliday, of the Blanding City Police Department (BPD), saw Yazzie driving through town. Halliday was surprised by the sight of Yazzie behind the wheel. Over the years, Halliday, as well as other members of the BPD, had encountered Yazzie on a number of occasions--most involving alcohol--and Yazzie had never produced a driver license when asked for identification. Suspecting that Yazzie had no license to drive, Halliday decided to stop him. He pulled his patrol car behind Yazzie and followed him for about four blocks, during which time Yazzie committed no moving violations. Halliday then initiated a traffic stop, ostensibly to investigate his "suspicion" that Yazzie was driving without a license.
When asked, Yazzie provided Halliday with an Arizona driver license, which Halliday determined to be valid. However, during his brief contact with Yazzie to procure the license, Halliday concluded that he had smelled alcohol. Consequently, although the Arizona license proved to be valid, Halliday ordered Yazzie from the car, where he performed a number of field sobriety tests, all of which Yazzie failed. At about this time, another officer of the BPD requested that dispatch check with Utah records concerning Yazzie's driving privileges. Through this check, it was discovered that Yazzie also had a Utah driver license, but that it had been suspended for alcohol-related offenses.
Yazzie was arrested and his blood alcohol tested. The results of the test showed that Yazzie was well over the legal limit. He was subsequently charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, operating a motor vehicle without operator's security, and driving on a suspended or revoked operator's license. Prior to his trial on these charges, Yazzie filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence that was discovered during the traffic stop, arguing that the stop was not supported by any reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. The trial court, following a hearing on the motion that consisted only of Halliday's testimony, denied the motion. Yazzie then entered a conditional guilty plea to the charges. He now appeals.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Yazzie argues that his initial detention was not supported by reasonable articulable suspicion and that the trial court erred in concluding to the contrary. When reviewing a trial court's decision concerning a defendant's motion to suppress, we review its factual findings for clear error, but, to ensure that search and seizure standards are applied similarly throughout the state, we review its legal conclusions for correctness, giving no deference to the court's application of the law to the facts. See State v. Brake, 2004 UT 95, -15, 103 P.3d 699; see also State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 125, , 63 P.3d 650 ("State-wide standards also help ensure different trial judges will reach the same legal conclusion in cases that have little factual difference.").
ANALYSIS
Yazzie argues that Halliday's rationale for stopping him was insufficient for constitutional purposes, and therefore that all evidence resulting from the stop should have been suppressed. "'Stopping an automobile and detaining its occup
Page 1 2 3 Utah DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|