 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Miller3/24/2004
ourt's fact findings due to its opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses, but the Court is not bound by those findings." Id.
III. Investigatory Stop of Miller's Vehicle. The issue presented before this court is whether the circumstances in this case provided Officer Schneider with reasonable suspicion sufficient to allow an investigatory stop of Miller's vehicle. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. Evidence obtained in violation of these provisions is inadmissible, regardless of its relevancy or probative value. Heminover, 619 N.W.2d at 357.
Searches conducted without a warrant are per se unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies. State v. Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Iowa 1997) (citations omitted). An exception to the warrant requirement exists when the totality of the circumstances provide an officer with specific and articulable facts, which taken together with a rational inference from those facts, warrants the intrusion of a stop. State v. Kreps, 650 N.W.2d 636, 641 (Iowa 2002). Such circumstances will allow an officer to stop a vehicle for investigatory purposes. Id. Law enforcement officers are allowed to stop a vehicle if the facts and circumstances of a particular case, including the officer's observations and experiences, give rise to a specific, articulable, and reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. State v. Otto, 566 N.W.2d 509, 511 (Iowa 1997); see also United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 750-51, 151 L.Ed.2d 740, 749-50 (2002) ("This process allows officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that might well elude an untrained person.").
The evidence justifying the stop need not rise to the level of probable cause. Kreps, 650 N.W.2d at 642. Yet, circumstances raising a mere suspicion or curiosity are not enough. Heminover, 619 N.W.2d at 358. However, officers may conduct stops with "considerably less than proof of wrongdoing." State v. Richardson, 501 N.W.2d 495, 496-97 (Iowa 1993) (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1, 10 (1989)).
**3 An officer's reasonable suspicion leading to an investigatory stop need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 277, 122 S.Ct. at 753, 151 L.Ed.2d at 752. A number of factors that could be considered innocent could collectively amount to reasonable suspicion. Id.; see also United States v. Gordon, 231 F.3d 750, 754 (11th Cir.2000) ("A reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may be formed by observing exclusively legal activity.").
In its order the district court noted, "A good test of such a founded suspicion is the possibility of criminal conduct was strong enough that upon an objective appraisal of the situation, we would be critical of the officers had they let the event pass without investigation." Kreps, 650 N.W.2d at 642. Miller was first observed when she made an abrupt stop. She then stopped fifteen feet short of a stop line. She did not acknowledge the officer when he pulled up beside her. Then, she made an extremely slow left turn. She was clocked traveling at about half of the posted speed limit. She was also driving very close to the right-hand curb and driving deliberately around parked cars, only to return to the curb. Upon considering the totality of the circumstances, the district court found Officer Schneider was more than justified in stopping Miller's vehicle. We agree. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision to deny Miller's motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|