 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Odom v. State12/1/2000
defendant from leaving, and that " ven at that time, ... the trooper already had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting [the defendant] of criminal activity; thus, a Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),] stop was justified." Smith, 515 So. 2d at 151. The court further stated that the defendant's negative responses to the trooper's questions, coupled with his inability to produce a license, established probable cause to arrest him for driving with a suspended or revoked license.
The facts of Smith and Betterton are distinguishable from those of this present case. In Smith and Betterton, the defendants had apparently already stopped or parked their cars; thus, in those cases, law-enforcement officers did not effectuate an actual "stop" of those vehicles, whereas in this present case, Lt. Wright, who did not see Odom do anything wrong -- only make a legal U-turn before reaching the roadblock -- pursued Odom for two miles before turning on his flashing lights and stopping Odom. It was only after the state trooper had stopped Odom's car and questioned Odom that he determined that Odom could not produce a driver's license and that he had been drinking. Furthermore, in Smith, the state trooper established probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving with a suspended or revoked license, not driving under the influence , as is the situation in this present case. I would grant the petition to examine the record and determine if Lt. Wright had any basis other than Odom's otherwise legal U-turn for determining that he had a "reasonable suspicion" that Odom was driving under the influence.
|