 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Rinehart10/18/2000
Affirmed
Considered On Briefs On October 21, 1999
[ .] Following a court trial, Adam Paul Rinehart was found guilty of DUI and third offense DUI.á We affirm.
FACTS
[ .] At 1:05 a.m. on July 3, 1998, Officer DeBoer saw Rinehart driving south on Sertoma Avenue near its intersection with 26th Street in southwest Sioux Falls, South Dakota.á The posted speed limit was 40 miles per hour.
[ .] DeBoer followed Rinehart's car and paced its speed for six blocks.á He estimated that Rinehart's speed was between 20 and 25 miles per hour.á DeBoer did not observe any traffic violations.
[ .] DeBoer activated his red lights and stopped Rinehart's vehicle.á The slow speed of Rinehart's vehicle raised concerns for DeBoer that the driver might have a medical problem such as a stroke.á "My whole intention," DeBoer testified, "was to stop him and see if he was all right."á Of secondary concern was the fact that in DeBoer's experience, driving under the speed limit "could" be an indicator of a possible drunk driver.
[ .] When DeBoer approached Rinehart he detected the odor of alcohol and noted his bloodshot, watery eyes.á Following field sobriety tests, DeBoer arrested Rinehart for driving under the influence , a violation of SDCL 32-23-1.
ISSUE
[ .] Did the trial court err when it denied Rinehart's motion to suppress the evidence obtained following the stop of Rinehart's vehicle?
[ .] In Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 US 433, 441, 93 SCt 2523, 2528, 37 LEd2d 706, 715 (1973) the United States Supreme Court observed that local police officers "frequently investigate vehicle accidents in which there is no claim of criminal liability and engage in what, for want of a better term, may be described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute."á Consequently " nder appropriate circumstances a law enforcement officer may be justified in stopping a vehicle to provide assistance, without needing any reasonable basis to suspect criminal activity."á State v. Brown, 509 NW2d 69, 71 (ND 1993).á If a police officer has a demonstrable reason to believe that a driver may be unfit to drive for medical or other reasons, a temporary stop is justified for the limited purpose of investigating the person's well-being.á McDonald v. State, 759 SW2d 784, 785 (TexApp-Fort Worth 1988).
[ .] In this case the trial court did not err in denying Rinehart's suppression motion.á Before stopping Rinehart, DeBoer observed his excessively slow speed at 1:09 a.m. which raised, in his experience and knowledge, concerns over the driver's medical condition. áAs the court in State v. Garbin, 739 A2d 1016, 1019 (NJSuperAD 1999) noted:
A police officer's observation of a person operating a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates something may be wrong with the vehicle or its driver is one recognized circumstance in which the police may take appropriate action in the performance of their community caretaking responsibilities.á For example, in State v. Martinez, 260 NJ Super 75, 78, 615 A2d 279 (AppDiv 1992) we stated that a police officer's observations of a motor vehicle being driven at less than 10 m.p.h. "suggest a number of objectively reasonable concerns," including that "something might be wrong with the car .á .á .á its driver."á Consequently, we held that these concerns justified "the minimal intrusion involved in a simple inquiry stop."á Id.á Similarly, in State v. Goetaski, 209 NJ Super 362, 507 A2d 751 (AppDiv 1986), we upheld the validity under the community caretaking doctrine of a stop of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|