 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rudd v. State2/25/2005
AFFIRMED BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM.
McMillan, P.J., and Baschab and Shaw, JJ., concur. Cobb, J., dissents, with opinion.
COBB, Judge, dissenting.
The majority in its unpublished memorandum holds that the trial court did not err when it denied Rudd's motion to suppress evidence. He argued that his statements to the police and evidence as to his sobriety should not have been admitted because, he maintained, they were obtained after an illegal stop and investigation. The stop was illegal, and Rudd's motion to suppress should have been granted. Therefore, I dissent.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Officer Robinson testified that he was on routine patrol on a dead-end dirt road when he saw Rudd's truck parked on the roadside. Robinson stated that when Rudd saw him, he started his engine and drove away. Robinson "stopped his vehicle as a suspicious vehicle being parked on the side of the road." (R. 19-20.) Robinson administered field-sobriety tests and arrested Rudd for driving under the influence . Robinson stated that "drug activities" had occurred on the dirt road and that the owners of the deer hunting land on both sides of the dirt road had telephoned the police numerous times, asking the police to check the area "because one time somebody burnt down some machine that they had down there -- vandalism such as that." (R. 19.) However, Robinson admitted that the police had no descriptions of any vehicles that might have been involved in the prior crimes. Rudd had not broken any laws when he stopped the vehicle, Robinson said, and he had no indication at the time that Rudd was engaged in any criminal activity. Robinson acknowledged that Rudd's driving away when he saw the patrol car did not influence his decision to stop Rudd's vehicle; he stated, "If he would have stayed parked, I still would have went out to the vehicle." (R. 20.) In fact, Robinson testified, "I would have stopped any vehicle because we didn't have a vehicle description." (R. 22.) Robinson admitted that he was acting on a hunch, on a mere suspicion, when he stopped Rudd on the road.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress without making any findings of fact. Robinson testified at trial about stopping Rudd and conducting field-sobriety tests. Rudd was convicted of misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol.
"The Fourth Amendment prohibits 'unreasonable searches and seizures' by the Government, and its protections extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968); United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981). Because the 'balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security,' United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975), tilts in favor of a standard less than probable cause in such cases, the Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the officer's action is supported by reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity '"may be afoot,"' United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989) (quoting Terry, supra, at 30). See also Cortez, 449 U.S., at 417 ('An investigatory stop must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity').
"When discussing how reviewing courts should make reasonable-suspicion determinations, we have said repeatedly that they must look at the 'totality of the circumstances' of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a 'particularized and objective basis' for suspecting legal wrongdoing. See, e.g., id., at 417-418. This process allows officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make infere
Page 1 2 3 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|