 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Kreps9/5/2002
e point where the vehicle stopped, the officer activated his red lights.
Certainly, the passenger's action could be described as headlong flight-"the consummate act of evasion"-provoked by the presence of a police vehicle and therefore suggestive of some wrongdoing. To us the act of the passenger is the "clincher." Adding this to all that went on before, we can truly say that the possibility of criminal conduct was strong enough that we would be critical of Officer Johnson had he let the event pass without investigation.
The fact that it was the passenger rather than the driver who fled does not change our conclusion. As the foregoing cited authority suggests, the fact that Officer Johnson did not have reasonable suspicion concerning every occupant of the vehicle he was following does not render his investigatory stop invalid. Because Officer Johnson had reason to suspect that the passenger was involved in criminal activity occurring within the car, or involving the car itself, such fact serves as a basis for a reasonable suspicion that the driver-Kreps-may have been a participant in that activity. At this point, the Fourth Amendment did not require Officer Johnson to merely "shrug his shoulders" and let criminal conduct occur or a criminal to escape. He was allowed to take the intermediate course-stop, investigate, and resolve the ambiguity.
Because Officer Johnson had reasonable grounds to stop Kreps' vehicle, the officer was in a place he had a right to be when he smelled the odor of alcohol coming from Kreps' vehicle and when he noticed Kreps' condition, all of which triggered the subsequent events. See Donnell, 239 N.W.2d at 577 ("A vehicle investigatory stop complying with the Terry standards may include observing anything to be seen from outside the vehicle.").
Disposition
In sum, we conclude Officer Johnson had reasonable cause to stop Kreps' vehicle. We therefore vacate the court of appeals' decision and reverse the district court judgment to the contrary. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED AND REMANDED.
|