 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Roberson3/2/2004
The State of North Carolina appeals an order filed 2 October 2002 allowing a motion by Ellen Monica Roberson (defendant) to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop.
In its 2 October 2002 order, the trial court found as fact that:
1. On October 19, 2001, Deputy J. S. Eaton of the Guilford County Sheriff's Department was on routine patrol in Greensboro, North Carolina.
2. Deputy Eaton . . . is experienced in the field of DWI detection, having received training in that area and also having been involved in more than 100 DWI arrests himself.
3. At approximately 4:30 a.m. on October 19, 2001, Deputy Eaton was traveling southbound on High Point Road in Greensboro, North Carolina when he approached the intersection of Holden Road, whereupon he stopped for a red traffic light. Defendant's vehicle was also stopped at this light; however, it was on the opposite side of the intersection traveling northbound on High Point Road. There were no other vehicles in the area.
4. When the light turned green, Deputy Eaton proceeded through the intersection[;] however, he noticed defendant's vehicle remained stationary. As he passed defendant's vehicle, he observed defendant and could see that she was looking straight ahead. Deputy Eaton was unable to recall whether he observed her hands. As he proceeded down High Point Road, he could see that . . . defendant's vehicle remained stationary at the light[;] however, he could no longer make any observations about her person.
5. After traveling approximately one city block, defendant's vehicle had still not moved. Deputy Eaton executed a U-turn and began to approach defendant's vehicle from the rear. As he approached defendant's vehicle, she lawfully proceeded through the intersection.
6. Deputy Eaton then activated his blue light and effected a traffic stop of defendant's vehicle. Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with the offense of driving while impaired.
7. Deputy Eaton estimated the total time that defendant's vehicle had delayed before proceeding through the intersection at Holden Road upon the signal changing to green at ten seconds; however, he acknowledged that in previous testimony he had estimated the time at eight to ten seconds.
8. On October 19, 2001, the furniture market was in session in High Point. Deputy Eaton testified that High Point Road was a major thoroughfare connecting Greensboro to High Point, and there were many bars and restaurants located in the immediate area where he stopped defendant. Deputy Eaton also expressed his belief that the bars and restaurants were required to stop serving alcohol at 2:00 a.m.
9. Deputy Eaton testified he had previously made other arrests for driving while impaired during other furniture markets. His observations of defendant on this evening led him to the opinion defendant may have been either impaired or suffering some medical difficulty.
Based on these findings, the trial court concluded the totality of circumstances did not give rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing justifying a stop or seizure of defendant's person or vehicle. As a result, the trial court suppressed evidence obtained during the traffic stop.
The dispositive issue is whether defendant's eight-to-ten-second delayed reaction at a traffic light gave rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot.
Generally, an appellate court's review of a trial court's order on a motion to suppress "is strictly limited to a determination of whether its findings are supported by competent evidence, and in turn, whether the findings support the trial court's ultim
Page 1 2 3 4 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|