By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
A police officer’s interaction with someone suspected of being intoxicated provided valid suspicion for the officer to later stop the person’s vehicle with a suspicion of drunken driving, a split Court of Appeals panel ruled recently.
In People v. Anderson (COA Docket No. 369614), a police officer interacted with the plaintiff at his father’s home, where he had admitted to drinking and the officer registered signs of intoxication.
About an hour later, the officer saw the plaintiff driving and, after running the plates and identifying the driver, conducted a traffic stop.
The plaintiff was later charged with driving while intoxicated. Lower courts dismissed the charge, ruling the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to pull over the plaintiff’s vehicle. The district court and the circuit court threw out the charges.
In a majority opinion written by Judge Christopher Yates and signed by Judge Mark Boonstra, the judges reversed the lower courts’ decision.
“Given the totality of the circumstances, Officer Prater had reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated when the officer saw defendant’s vehicle on the road within an hour of observing him exhibiting several signs of intoxication,” Yates wrote. “Even if no observations Officer Prater made while following defendant’s vehicle – including the abrupt right turn – provided reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop, the stop was still permissible as a matter of law.”
Judge Adrienne Young dissented, writing the officer’s reason for the traffic stop were “stale and given minimal, if any, credibility by the lower court.
“These observations alone do not amount to reasonable suspicion, and because Prater’s traffic stop of Anderson did not comply with the Fourth Amendment, I would affirm the circuit court’s order.”
Additionally, Young said the traffic stop was motivated by a “hunch” from the officer.
“As the majority acknowledges, a hunch is insufficient to rise to the level of reasonable suspicion,” she wrote.
The Detroit Free Press reported the plaintiff’s attorney plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Gongwer News Service
A police officer’s interaction with someone suspected of being intoxicated provided valid suspicion for the officer to later stop the person’s vehicle with a suspicion of drunken driving, a split Court of Appeals panel ruled recently.
In People v. Anderson (COA Docket No. 369614), a police officer interacted with the plaintiff at his father’s home, where he had admitted to drinking and the officer registered signs of intoxication.
About an hour later, the officer saw the plaintiff driving and, after running the plates and identifying the driver, conducted a traffic stop.
The plaintiff was later charged with driving while intoxicated. Lower courts dismissed the charge, ruling the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to pull over the plaintiff’s vehicle. The district court and the circuit court threw out the charges.
In a majority opinion written by Judge Christopher Yates and signed by Judge Mark Boonstra, the judges reversed the lower courts’ decision.
“Given the totality of the circumstances, Officer Prater had reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated when the officer saw defendant’s vehicle on the road within an hour of observing him exhibiting several signs of intoxication,” Yates wrote. “Even if no observations Officer Prater made while following defendant’s vehicle – including the abrupt right turn – provided reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop, the stop was still permissible as a matter of law.”
Judge Adrienne Young dissented, writing the officer’s reason for the traffic stop were “stale and given minimal, if any, credibility by the lower court.
“These observations alone do not amount to reasonable suspicion, and because Prater’s traffic stop of Anderson did not comply with the Fourth Amendment, I would affirm the circuit court’s order.”
Additionally, Young said the traffic stop was motivated by a “hunch” from the officer.
“As the majority acknowledges, a hunch is insufficient to rise to the level of reasonable suspicion,” she wrote.
The Detroit Free Press reported the plaintiff’s attorney plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
