 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Haley v. State3/25/2005
Mandate Issued: 10/20/2005
__ P.3d __
Defendant/Appellant State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Department of Public Safety (DPS), seeks review of the trial court's order vacating the drivers' license revocation of Plaintiff/Appellee Conrad E. Haley (Haley) for lack of a valid arrest. In this appeal, DPS challenges the trial court's order as affected by errors of both law and fact.
On May 4, 2004, an officer of the Edmond Police Department arrested Haley for operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and Haley refused to submit to a blood or breath test. DPS issued an order revoking Haley's drivers' license, and upon administrative review, a hearing officer sustained the revocation. Haley then commenced the instant action for judicial review of his drivers' license revocation in the trial court.
On direct examination at trial, the arresting officer testified:
I noticed the vehicle was slow to change lanes. It would signal its intent to change a lane; it was very slow about changing lanes. As it approached the traffic lights, it would slow down way back behind the traffic lights before it came up for a stop.
. . . . I saw the vehicle coming out of the [Oxford Apartments] driveway on the wrong side of the drive. . . .
It's a - there's a one-way in and a one-way out divided by a grass median.
He was coming out of the - he was coming out of the entrance into the apartment complex.
I made contact with the driver, told him why I had stopped him.
His response was real slow. He - he kind of seemed startled that I had stopped him.
While talking to him, I smelled the odor associated with the consumption of an alcoholic beverage on his breath and person. I saw that he had slow and uncoordinated movements while he was looking for his driver's license and his insurance form.
He - he was able to find the driver's license. He never located his insurance.
I asked him if he'd been drinking.
[He said] hat he'd had one beer.
I then had asked him to get out of his car in order to perform field sobriety tests.
I was able to observe that he was unsteady on his feet.
is speech was slow and mumbled.
[After I completed the field sobriety tests,] I placed him under arrest for driving under the influence .
On cross-examination, Haley's attorney further questioned the arresting officer concerning the matters to which he testified on direct. Haley's attorney then asked, and the officer answered:
Q: Okay. So did you make the decision to arrest him after you detected the odor?
A: No.
Q: After you had the odor and the slow uncoordinated movements?
A: It was -- are you asking with just those two?
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: It was after he admitted drinking a beer?
A: No.
Q: After he was unsteady on his feet?
A: No.
The arresting officer then described his administration of a horizontal gaze nystagmus test (HGT) to Haley, and identified the clues of intoxication he detected in the process.
At the close of the evidence, Haley interposed a demurrer and motion for directed verdict, asserting that DPS failed to present evidence showing any driving offense committed in the arresting officer's presence, and therefore, an invalid arrest. Based on the arresting officer's testimony on cross-examination, the trial court agreed with Haley:
It is clear from [the arresting officer's] tes
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|