 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schoenthaler v. State6/28/2000
re under no statutory duty to test Schoenthaler's blood. Furthermore, the State has pointed to nothing in this record that shows the police acted under authority of this statute. In fact, the record shows that the police thought that a warrant was necessary.
Was the mechanical inspection of Schoenthaler's vehicle an illegal search?
Schoenthaler contends that the inspection of the brakes and steering systems of his pickup was a warrantless search and argues that Judge Wolverton erred when he did not suppress the evidence gained as a result of that inspection. Schoenthaler's pickup was impounded immediately after the accident and towed to the police impound area. The next day, under police supervision, a mechanic towed the pickup to a garage and inspected the brake system and the steering system. This inspection confirmed the brake fluid leak first reported by Schoenthaler. The right rear brake assembly was contaminated with brake fluid and the rear brakes would not stop the rotation of the right rear wheel when the engine was running with the transmission in gear and the rear axle off the ground.
In State v. McDonald, we addressed an inspection of the interior of a vehicle in police custody that followed the initial lawful seizure of the vehicle. Sometime after the initial seizure, an officer inspected the vehicle in an attempt to find additional evidence. This court noted the settled rule that an item lawfully in police custody can be subjected to additional examination:
n object lawfully seized as evidence may be kept in custody pending trial, and during that period "it is plainly within the realm of police investigation to subject [such an object] to scientific testing and examination" when such is done "for the purpose of determining its evidentiary value." That is, if the initial seizure was upon probable cause that the item would be of evidentiary value, it may be tested and examined for the purpose maximizing its value in this respect.
If Schoenthaler's pickup was lawfully seized, this rule authorized the inspection of the brakes and steering system on Schoenthaler's pickup. But we ruled above that the police did not have probable cause to believe that Schoenthaler committed the offenses for which he was arrested. Accordingly, the police did not have probable cause to believe that the pickup could be evidence relevant to a charge of assault or driving while intoxicated against Schoenthaler.
The State argues that the impoundment and inspection of the vehicle could also be justified under AS 28.35.070. However, that statute addresses situations where a person seeks to repair a vehicle that may have been damaged during a collision: "A person may not make or have made repairs to damage or injury to a motor vehicle that could have been caused by collision with a person or property . . .". Nothing in this record indicates that Schoenthaler's vehicle was damaged as a result of hitting Pettit. Although the police looked at the exterior of the pickup, they were not able to tell what part of the pickup hit Pettit and there is nothing in this record that shows that Schoenthaler's pickup was damaged. Furthermore, the inspection performed in this case focused on the pre-existing mechanical condition of the pickup, not on any damage that could have originated in the accident. Finally, to the extent that AS 28.35.070 authorizes seizure of a vehicle in the absence of probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred, it is potentially unconstitutional for the same reasons as AS 28.35.031(g). We conclude that AS 28.35.070 did not authorize the impoundment of the pickup for the inspection of the pre-existing condition of the vehicle.
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.
|
|