 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Williams12/13/2001
ulable facts, that a criminal offense has been or is about to be committed. In determining whether a police officer's reasonable suspicion is supported by specific and articulable facts, a court must consider the totality of the circumstances. This includes, but is not limited to, objective observations, information obtained from other police officers or agencies, information obtained from citizens, and the pattern of operation of certain offenders. A court must also consider the rational inferences and deductions that a trained police officer may draw from the facts and circumstances known to him. Watkins, 827 S.W.2d at 294 (citation omitted).
In the present case, neither Officer Gibson nor Corporal Lucas was able to articulate any fact that they observed that would support a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been or was about to be committed. Both Officers testified that the Defendant behaved completely within the bounds of the law while under their observation. Officer Gibson observed the Defendant yelling at a vehicle in a parking lot, but could articulate no other suspicious activity. Corporal Lucas stated that he relied completely on Officer Gibson's dispatch in pulling the Defendant over to the side of the road, and further stated that he would not have stopped the Defendant were it not for Officer Gibson's dispatch.
In the Order Denying Motion to Suppress, the trial judge relied on two facts to support his denial of the Motion to Suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop. First, the trial judge stated that Officer Gibson believed the Defendant left the scene of a confrontation when the officer "initiated his lights," and the dispatch issued was justified. Second, the trial court stated that "while Officer Lucas was in the process of stopping Mr. Williams' vehicle, he was under the impression that Mr. Williams might possibly be driving under the influence ." Neither of these findings are supported by the record. Both officers testified that the Defendant operated his vehicle within the bounds of the law while they observed him. Officer Gibson stated that the Defendant left "the scene of an investigation." Corporal Lucas testified that he would not have stopped the Defendant, but for the dispatch. Therefore, we find that no reasonable suspicions existed to allow Corporal Lucas to stop the Defendant's vehicle. The investigatory stop was in violation of the Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights as well as his rights pursuant to Article I section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. All evidence obtained as a result of the illegal stop must be suppressed.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we find that the Defendant properly reserved a certified question of law concerning the trial court's denial of his Motion to Suppress and that the trial court erred in denying said motion. The Defendant's conviction is vacated and the charges against the Defendant are dismissed.
|