Summary 2007 WY 173
Summary of Decision issued November 2, 2007
[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]
Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court
Case Name: Batten v. Wyoming DOT Drivers’ License Division
Citation: 2007 WY 173
Docket Number: 06-290
Appeal from the
Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Mike Cornia,
Representing Appellee (Respondent): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General;
Date of Decision: November 2, 2007
Issues: Whether the district court erred in affirming the decision of the hearing officer who determined there was reasonable suspicion to detain Petitioner after a legitimate traffic stop for the purpose of performing the field sobriety tests and probable cause to arrest him for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Further, whether there was substantial evidence to support Petitioner’s per se driver’s license suspension.
Standard of Review: The Court reviewed the case as if it had come directly from the administrative agency. They review the entire record to determine whether the agency findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Facts/Discussion: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. A traffic stop is a limited investigatory detention and implicates constitutional protections. In looking at whether the detention was valid, the Court considers whether the initial stop was justified and whether the officer's actions during the detention were reasonably related in scope. In the present action, Petitioner focuses his argument on the second part of this analysis, presumably because the trooper was justified in stopping him for the broken headlight.
An investigative detention must be temporary, lasting no longer than necessary and the scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification. A law enforcement officer may expand the investigative detention if the traveler consents to the expanded detention or if the officer has an objectively reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred or is occurring or a reasonable suspicion that an occupant of the vehicle is armed. In this case, the trooper was required to show the presence of specific and articulable facts and rational inferences which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Petitioner had driven while under the influence of alcohol in order to justify the continued detention for purposes of performing the field sobriety tests. The totality of the evidence is considered in determining whether the trooper had reasonable suspicion to extend the detention. The undisputed facts in this case, including the odor of alcohol, Petitioner’s admission he had been drinking shortly before he was stopped, his inability to locate proof of insurance, and his knowing violation of a traffic law by driving with a broken headlight at night, support the hearing examiner’s conclusion that the trooper had reasonable suspicion to further detain Petitioner in order to conduct field sobriety tests. The seizure of Petitioner for purposes of administering the field sobriety tests did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.
Probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists when, under the totality of the circumstances, a prudent, reasonable, and cautious peace officer would be led to believe that a crime has been or is being committed and that the individual arrested is the perpetrator. In the present action, the agency record, including the trooper’s report and a video tape of the stop which Petitioner introduced into evidence at the contested case hearing, supports the hearing examiner’s factual findings. The evidence supported the hearing examiner’s ultimate finding that Petitioner’s performance on the field sobriety tests was “poor.”
Holding: The hearing examiner’s factual findings all support the legal conclusion that the trooper had probable cause to arrest Petitioner for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Given the results of the field sobriety tests and all the other indicators, a prudent, reasonable, and cautious peace officer would have believed that Petitioner had committed the crime of driving while intoxicated. Probable cause existed to sustain the trooper’s warrantless arrest of Petitioner.
Affirmed.
J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court.
Link: http://tinyurl.com/2e54kw .
No comments:
Post a Comment