 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Martinez10/23/2002
THE COURT:
After his motion to suppress was denied, Ronald John Martinez, Jr., pled guilty to one count of driving under the influence of alcohol, and one count of driving with a blood alcohol content in excess of the legal limit. The sole issue on appeal is the propriety of the trial court's denial of the suppression motion. We affirm.
I.
Around 12:30 a.m. on August 31, 2000, a police officer with the City of Laguna Beach was told by a citizen at a gas station that someone was crashing his vehicle into the alley wall behind a nearby gas station. The alley, which is very narrow, runs parallel to Pacific Coast Highway.
Based on this information, the officer drove down the main road to a point where he could see the vehicle. It appeared the vehicle's front bumper on the driver's side was touching, or nearly touching, the alley wall and that Martinez was trying to negotiate a three-point turn. The engine was racing and the vehicle was moving up and down as though the brakes had been applied suddenly. The officer went down the road, turned around, and when he returned he saw Martinez had completed the turn and was now traveling down the alley the other way. The officer thought the three-point turn unusual because there was a commercial parking lot a very short distance away where Martinez could have turned around easily.
The officer pulled over Martinez. As he approached, the officer detected a strong odor of alcohol. When asked if he had consumed any alcohol, Martinez said he had drunk 24 cans of beer. After a preliminary alcohol screening test indicated Martinez had a blood alcohol content of .23 percent, the officer arrested him. A subsequent forensic alcohol test determined that Martinez had a blood alcohol content of around .26 percent.
II.
Before a police officer may make an investigative stop or detention, "the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing him to suspect that (1) some activity relating to a crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2) the person he intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity." (In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 893.) " f the circumstances are `consistent with criminal activity,' they permit-even demand-an investigation: the public rightfully expects a police officer to inquire into such circumstances `in the proper discharge of the officer's duty.' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 894.) Merely because there is " he possibility of an innocent explanation does not deprive the officer of the capacity to entertain a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. Indeed, the principal function of his investigation is to resolve that very ambiguity and establish whether the activity is in fact legal or illegal . . . ." (Ibid.)
Martinez concedes it was reasonable for the officer to conduct an initial investigation based on the citizen's statements to him. He argues, however, it was unreasonable for the officer to continue the investigation after he saw Martinez in the alleyway. He asserts that because the officer did not actually see or hear Martinez's vehicle strike the wall, and because Martinez successfully completed the three- point turn, " here was nothing about the presence of the car in the alley or the manner in which it was operated that would reasonably suggest any criminality. There was no evidence appellant was engaged in any sort of vandalism, hit and run accident, traffic collision, or vehicle code violation." Furthermore, Martinez suggests that the facts the trial court found true merely showed the officer saw him "driving not just normally, but skillfully, managing a difficult turn in
Page 1 2 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|