 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Herrboldt4/28/1999
SD 1994); State v. Abourezk, 359 NW2d 137, 142 (SD 1984); State v. Auto. Cas. Under. v. Ruotsalainen, 136 NW2d 884, 888 (SD 1965)).
[ ] Whether Law Enforcement Had A Reasonable Suspicion Or Specific Articulable Facts To Stop Herrboldt.
[ ] "The stop of an automobile and the detention of its occupants is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments." Spenner v. City of Sioux Falls, 1998 SD 56, § 13, 580 NW2d 606, 610 (citing Delaware v. Prouse, 440 US 648, 99 SCt 1391, 59 LEd2d 660 (1979)). Law enforcement may not stop a vehicle without a reasonable suspicion for doing so. Id. (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1, 88 SCt 1868, 20 LEd2d 889 (1968)). "However, it should be emphasized that the reasonable suspicion required to make a stop is less than the probable cause required to issue a warrant or make an arrest." Id. (citing State v. Lownes, 499 NW2d 896, 898 (SD 1993)). "The existence of reasonable suspicion is a question of law which is fully reviewable by this Court." Lownes, 499 NW2d at 898.
" he factual basis required to support a stop for a "routine traffic check" is minimal ... . All that is required is that the stop be not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity. It is enough if the stop is based upon "specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant intrusion[.]" Spenner, 1998 SD 56 at § 14, 580 NW2d at 610-11 (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Krebs, 504 NW2d 580, 585 (SD 1993)).
[ ] The stop of Herrboldt was "not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity." Herrboldt honked his horn while law enforcement officers were investigating the scene of an armed robbery. Under the stipulation, Officer Burgeson had "specific and articulable facts" to stop him to determine whether he had any "information about the robbery or involved therein." "'A police officer, in performing his official work, may properly question persons when the circumstances reasonably indicate that it is necessary to the proper discharge of his duties.'" Id. at § 15, 580 NW2d at 611 (quoting Krebs, 504 NW2d at 585 (citations omitted)).
The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response. A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time. Adams v. Williams, 407 US 143, 145-46, 92 SCt 1921, 1923, 32 LEd2d 612, 616-17 (1972) (citations omitted).
[ ] Under the circumstances of this case, Herrboldt essentially invited the officers to stop him by honking his horn while driving past them at the scene of an armed robbery. He intentionally drew their attention to him. This is a "stop by invitation." The Constitution is not intended to protect individuals from this type of stupidity. Herrboldt's state and federal constitutional rights were not violated by Officer Burgeson stopping him to determine whether he had information about the armed robbery. The trial court erred in suppressing the arrest and the evidence obtained thereby. We reverse and remand.
[ ] MILLER, Chief Justice, and AMUNDSON, KONENKAMP, and GILBERTSON, Justices, concur.
Page 1 2 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|