 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schoenthaler v. State6/28/2000
cted Schoenthaler for third-degree assault and the State filed an information charging driving while intoxicated. Schoenthaler claimed that the police did not have probable cause to arrest him or to obtain the search warrant. He also claimed that the portable breath test was administered without probable cause. Finally, Schoenthaler claimed that the inspection of his pickup's mechanical systems required a search warrant. Superior Court Judge Michael L. Wolverton denied Schoenthaler's suppression motions. The case was tried before Superior Court Judge Fred Torrisi and Schoenthaler was convicted of third-degree assault and driving while intoxicated.
Discussion
Did the police have probable cause to arrest?
Schoenthaler argues that the police did not have probable cause to arrest him for assault or for driving while intoxicated. This issue presents a mixed question of fact and law. Schoenthaler does not claim that the findings Judge Wolverton made were clearly erroneous. Accepting those findings and viewing the record in the light most favorable to the State, we must exercise our independent judgment, and decide as a matter of law whether the facts establish probable cause.
The record shows that at the time of Schoenthaler's arrest, the police knew that Schoenthaler had been driving when his truck struck and injured Pettit. Schoenthaler said he was driving about twenty miles per hour when Pettit emerged from between parked cars and stepped into the road in front of him. Schoenthaler applied his brakes, leaving skid marks on the roadway, but he could not avoid hitting Pettit. Schoenthaler admitted that he had consumed some beer earlier in the afternoon. Sergeant Lucking's observation of the odor associated with alcohol consumption confirmed Schoenthaler's admission as did the results of a portable breath test that showed a .064 result. When Sergeant Lucking testified in support of the search warrant, he admitted that, despite the odor of alcoholic beverages, Schoenthaler did not exhibit any sign that he was under the influence of alcohol.
Probable cause exists if the facts and circumstances known to the officer would warrant a prudent person in believing that the defendant had committed an offense. In this case, Schoenthaler admitted to Sergeant Lucking that he drank some beer earlier in the afternoon, and Lucking's observations confirmed that admission. Sergeant Lucking also knew that there had been an injury accident. But the portable breath test did not give rise to any presumption regarding whether or not Schoenthaler was impaired. The State presented no facts indicating that Schoenthaler's earlier consumption of alcohol impaired his ability to operate a motor vehicle or was a contributing factor in the accident. Indeed, when the police arrested Schoenthaler, the police had no other evidence indicating that Schoenthaler was at fault in causing the accident.
From our review of the record, we conclude that the police were not aware of sufficient facts and circumstances to warrant a prudent person in believing that Schoenthaler had committed the offense of driving while intoxicated or that Schoenthaler was criminally at fault in causing the accident.
Was Schoenthaler's blood illegally seized?
Schoenthaler argues that the blood that the police obtained was illegally seized. He maintains that evidence submitted by the police in support of the application for the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause. We agree because of our conclusion above that the information the police had when they arrested Schoenthaler, essentially the same information they presented to the magistrate in support of the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|