 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Berry v. State3/30/2001
nting car theft, that alone is insufficient to justify the intrusion at issue. "The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests." The hypothesis at work under both scenarios presented above is that "stopping apparently [compliant] drivers is necessary only because the danger presented by some drivers is not observable at the time of the stop." That hypothesis did not survive the United States Supreme Court's balancing test in Delaware v. Prouse, and I can discern no reason why it should survive here. Indeed, this Court has previously held that such stop is impermissible, and my research of cases from several jurisdictions did not reveal a single court which upheld a stop under the circumstances.
For these reasons, I agree with the majority that Watson should be overruled and agree with Presiding Judge Pope that Burtts v. State should be overruled. I disagree with the dissent that the officer was justified in stopping Berry. Probable cause is not satisfied by a policeman's proclivity to pry.
2. Were the officer's actions in this case reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place? The majority answers with a non-negotiable "no". The dissent, with equal passion responds with a dubious "yes". For reasons which follow, I cannot enter that door of doubt which the dissent enters.
In light of my conclusion in Division 1, that the stop was not justified at its inception, I would usually dispense with considering whether the scope of the officer's investigation was impermissibly broad. However, because I believe the dissent has misconstrued Terry and its progeny, and because it recommends overruling Smith v. State, I believe it is necessary to comment on these matters.
In Terry, the Court addressed the constitutionality of an investigative stop and recognized that "the scope of the particular intrusion, in light of all the exigencies of the case, a central element in the analysis of reasonableness." Indeed, the Court advised that " he scope of the search must be 'strictly tied to and justified by' the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible." Thus, the Court framed the inquiry as "whether the officer's action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place."
Fifteen years after its decision in Terry, the Court, with no less fervor, continued to circumscribe the scope of warrantless searches in Florida v. Royer. In Royer, the Court reiterated that "the search must be limited in scope to that which is justified by the particular purpose served by the exception." In other words, the Court explained, " he scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification." Although the "scope of the intrusion permitted will vary to some extent with the particular facts and circumstances of each case," the Court in Royer made it clear that
an investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Similarly, the investigative methods employed should be the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer's suspicion in a short period of time.
Based on these principles, this Court found the stop in Smith v. State was impermissibly broad. In Smith, the officer stopped the defendant, Smith, to investigate why his car was weaving. Upon being satisfied that Smith was not driving under the influence of alc
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|