 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dahl v. State ex rel Department of Public Safety12/26/2001
g any law of the state," 47 O.S. Supp. 1982, § 2-117, it therefore follows that any officer acting upon the request of a State Highway Patrol officer has the same rights and immunities thereof. Id. at 8, 709 P.2d at 693 (emphasis added).
The court concluded that, because the officers were acting at the request and under the direction of the trooper, they "derived the right to apprehend" the defendant from the trooper. Id. The current version of section 2-117(2) still provides that an officer acting upon the request of a member of the OHP acquires the rights and immunities of the OHP. This includes the right to make a stop for purposes of an investigative detention.
In accordance with Geary, we find that Officer Tompkins was acting upon the direction and request of the OHP, and, therefore, derived the right to stop Dahl for the benefit of the OHP. In the course of this valid stop, Trooper Dickens made personal observations which, together with information previously communicated to him by Officer Tompkins in the course of assisting Trooper Dickens, furnished sufficient probable cause to arrest Dahl for DUI. As a result, we find the trial court erred in concluding that Dahl was not validly arrested. Having so concluded, we find it unnecessary to address State's remaining arguments. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court.
REVERSED.
REIF, V.C.J., and GOODMAN, P.J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|