 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Haley v. State3/25/2005
uent arrest is lawful.
Smith, 1984 OK 16, , 680 P.2d at 367.
In this respect, "speeding, driving at an usually slow rate, or from one side of the road to the other are certainly grounds for an officer to stop the motorist involved, whatever the reason for such operation of such vehicle." Moore v. State, 1957 OK CR 10, , 306 P.2d 358, 360. And, there can be no doubt that whether the police officer had probable cause is considered from an objective point of view: "As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred[,] . . . . 'the fact that the officer does not have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justification for the officer's action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action.'" Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806, 810, 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 1772, 1774 (U.S. (D.C.) 1996). (Emphasis added.) (Citations omitted.)
On direct examination, the arresting officer described his observation of Haley's erratic driving -- slowly changing lanes, slowly approaching intersections, and exiting an apartment complex parking lot through its entrance -- which prompted his stop and further inquiry of Haley. The trial court held the arresting "officer properly made contact with Haley by stopping him after the officer noticed Haley exit from an apartment complex utilizing the entry . . . ."
Also on direct, the arresting officer described Haley's appearance and actions upon his further inquiry -- smelling of alcohol, unsteadiness on his feet, and mumbled speech -- which prompted his administration of the HGT field sobriety test to the driver, the indicia of intoxication discerned, and his subsequent arrest of Haley for DUI. Viewed objectively, the arresting officer's articulation of his specific, pre-arrest observations of Haley's demeanor, acts and appearance, including the indicia of intoxication discerned upon administration of the HGT, would wholly justify a prudent person to reasonably believe Haley was operating his motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and established the officer's probable cause for the arrest.
The trial court's conclusion that the officer did not articulate specific, objective facts establishing probable cause for the arrest is contrary to law and unsupported by the evidence adduced. The order of the trial court is therefore REVERSED, and the cause REMANDED.
HANSEN, J., and BUETTNER, C.J., concur.
|