 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bloomingdale v. State1/2/2004
In this appeal we consider the validity of an investigative stop of an automobile. Following his conviction for driving under the influence, the defendant challenged as unconstitutional the officer's stop of the defendant's vehicle, arguing that the anonymous tip that led to the stop was insufficient to create reasonable and articulable suspicion for the stop. The State responded that the defendant had waived that argument by failing to raise it earlier in the proceedings. The State also contends that the stop was valid. We assume without deciding that the defendant did not waive his challenge to the constitutionality of the stop. We hold that the stop was constitutionally valid. We therefore affirm the Superior Court's judgment of conviction.
Facts
On May 28, 1999, Chief Michael Capriglione of the Newport Police Department was on patrol in Newport, Delaware, when he received a general broadcast of a possible drunk driver "driving all over the roadway" near James Street and Route 141. The broadcast described the make, model, and color of the vehicle, gave the license tag number. The broadcast also identified the driver's race and travel route, but did not identify the source of the information.
Chief Capriglione spotted the vehicle within a few seconds of the broadcast. He followed the car just long enough to confirm the tag number and then stopped the car, driven by the defendant, Frederick Bloomingdale. Chief Capriglione did not observe any erratic driving before making the stop.
Upon stopping Bloomingdale, Chief Capriglione immediately noted that Bloomingdale smelled of alcohol. Bloomingdale admitted he had been drinking. Chief Capriglione also noticed that the interior of the car was littered with trash, including some empty alcohol containers. The officer then administered field sobriety tests. When Bloomingdale did not perform satisfactorily on those tests, Chief Capriglione *1214 arrested Bloomingdale and transported him to the police station, where a breath test indicated that Bloomingdale's blood alcohol content was .10, a reading above the legal limit. [FN2]
FN2. See Del.Code Ann. tit. 21, § 4177(a)(4) (1995) (prohibiting a person from driving an automobile when "the person's alcohol concentration is .10 or more"); see also Coxe v. State, 281 A.2d 606, 607 (Del.1971) (holding that to establish guilt of driving under the influence, "the State must prove only that the defendant was in physical control of the vehicle, and that a proper and timely test showed the required percentage of alcohol concentrated in the defendant's system").
Represented by counsel, Bloomingdale was tried in the Court of Common Pleas and convicted of driving under the influence. [FN3] Bloomingdale failed to challenge the traffic stop before or during the trial. [FN4] After trial, Bloomingdale filed a motion for reconsideration and/or acquittal, a motion for a new trial and a motion to stay his sentence. He argued in support of those motions that the trial court's ruling that the arresting officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Bloomingdale based solely on an uncorroborated anonymous tip was contrary to this Court's holding in Jones v. State. [FN5] He also asserted that he had not waived this argument because the police report given to the defense before trial did not provide counsel with a sufficient factual basis on which to file a suppression motion.
FN3. Del.Code Ann. tit. 21, § 4177 (1995 & Supp.2002).
FN4. Bloomingdale's counsel did argue during closing that Chief Capriglione had not had "probable cause" to stop the vehicle. The Court of Common Pleas held that the general broadcast was sufficient to validate the stop.
FN5. 745 A.2d 856 (Del.1999).
While the post-trial motions were pendin
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|