 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shultz v. State12/4/2002
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
Appellant John Leslie Shultz appeals his conviction for second-offense driving while intoxicated. For reversal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in not suppressing evidence from both the field-sobriety and the breathalyzer tests because they were the results of an illegal arrest by a second officer who was called to the scene by the officer who initiated the stop. We disagree and affirm.
The following facts surrounding the arrest were stipulated at trial. On January 19, 2001, appellant was driving east on Highway 45 within the city limits of Fayetteville. Officer Pool of the Fayetteville Police Department began following appellant's vehicle after he observed the vehicle cross the center line but was unable to ascertain whether or not the violation was caused by the appellant entering the roadway. Pool continued to follow the vehicle beyond the city limits, and when appellant's vehicle crossed the center line a second time, he initiated a traffic stop. Following the stop, Pool requested the assistance of Officer Swanfeld, a DWI enforcement specialist with the Fayetteville Police Department. Upon Swanfeld's arrival at the scene, he had appellant perform field-sobriety tests. Thereafter, he arrested appellant and transported him to the Fayetteville city jail where appellant was incarcerated following a breathalyzer test indicating that he had a .17 blood-alcohol content.
Following his conviction in municipal court, appellant appealed to the circuit court where the case was tried on the stipulated facts. The circuit court denied appellant's motion to suppress the results of the tests and found him guilty of second-offense driving while intoxicated. From that order comes this appeal.
In reviewing the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we make an independent determination based upon the totality of the circumstances and reverse only if the court's ruling was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. State v. Fountain, __ Ark. __, __ S.W.3d __ (October 31, 2002); Thomas v. State, 65 Ark. App. 134, 137, 985 S.W.2d 752, 753 (1999); King v. State, 42 Ark. App. 97, 854 S.W.2d 362 (1993). It is well settled that in cases involving the legality of an arrest, "all presumptions are favorable to the trial court's ruling on the legality of the arrest, and the burden of demonstrating error rests on the appellant." Efurd v. State, 334 Ark. 596, 600, 976 S.W.2d 928, 931 (1998).
Appellant argues that the trial court erred by not suppressing evidence of the field-sobriety tests performed by Swanfeld and the results of the breathalyzer test because they were the products of an illegal arrest. Appellant contends that the circumstances surrounding the arrest by Swanfeld did not provide a recognized basis that justified an arrest by an officer outside his territorial jurisdiction. In particular, appellant notes that Swanfeld was not in fresh pursuit of appellant.
This court has held that there are four instances where officers may arrest outside their territorial jurisdiction:
(1) when the officer is in fresh pursuit; (2) when the officer has a warrant for arrest; (3) when a local law enforcement agency has a written policy regulating officers acting outside its territorial jurisdiction and when said officer is requested to come into the foreign jurisdiction; and (4) when a sheriff in a contiguous county requests an officer to come into his county to investigate and make arrests for violations of drug laws. Thomas v. State, 65 Ark. App. 134, 136, 985 S.W.2d 752, 753 (1999).
Appellant states that he "concedes that the initial stop was legal pursuant t
Page 1 2 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|