Crauthers v. State
| Decision Date | 31 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. A-1507,A-1507 |
| Citation | 727 P.2d 9 |
| Parties | Amos CRAUTHERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee. |
| Court | Alaska Court of Appeals |
Carol A. Brenckle, Asst. Public Defender, Kenai, and Dana Fabe, Public Defender, Anchorage, for appellant.
Nathan A. Callahan, Asst. Dist. Atty., Thomas M. Wardell, Dist. Atty., Kenai, and Harold M. Brown, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.
Before COATS and SINGLETON, JJ., and STEWART, District Judge. *
Amos Crauthers entered a plea of no contest to the charge of driving while intoxicated, AS 28.35.030. He preserved his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the fruits of what he alleged was an improper investigatory stop, Cooksey v. State, 524 P.2d 1251 (Alaska 1974).
At the hearing on Crauther's motion to suppress, Trooper Miller testified that he was on routine patrol in the early morning hours of December 24, 1985, in a marked Alaska State Trooper vehicle. At approximately 1:00 a.m., Miller was approaching an intersection in a lane which would require him to turn left, after making a complete stop at a stop sign. About one-and-one-half car lengths ahead of Miller's vehicle, in the far right lane, was a black Ford. The far right lane was "right turn only," and there was a yield sign at the intersection which applied to traffic in this lane.
According to Miller, the black Ford came to a stop twenty-five to thirty feet in front of the yield sign and the driver rolled down his window. Miller took this as an attempt to get his attention and pulled in behind the Ford. Miller testified, As a safety precaution, Miller turned on his overhead flashing lights at this point. The Ford, driven by Crauthers, pulled past the yield sign, around the corner, and into a parking lot. Miller followed, and during the subsequent contact, Miller observed signs of intoxication and ultimately arrested Crauthers.
Crauthers testified that he thought his boss was in the vehicle behind him, because they had separated only a few minutes earlier. Crauthers wanted to ask some work-related questions, so he slowed down to about eight to ten miles per hour and rolled down his window. As soon as Miller activated the flashing lights, Crauthers pulled around the corner and into the parking lot. Crauthers stated that he believed he had a legal duty to pull over. On cross-examination, Crauthers testified that rolling down the window was an attempt to attract the attention of his boss. A passenger in Crauthers' vehicle also testified that Crauthers never stopped the vehicle.
After the initial contact, Trooper Miller made a recording of much of the conversation occurring in the course of the investigation. The tape was admitted into evidence. Statements made on the tape generally supported the testimony of Crauthers and his passenger. For example, Crauthers stated, "The only reason I slowed down ... I thought my boss was behind me, he was at the bar with me up at Joe's, I thought he wanted to talk to me." Miller stated, "That's the reason I stopped you, I wasn't really sure what you wanted me to do ... you rolled down your window and I didn't know if you wanted me to pass you up or what you were doing there." Crauthers also stated that he did not see the overhead lights until they were turned on.
In denying Crauthers' motion, Magistrate Brigitte McBride found that it was possible to conclude that the car slowed to an extremely low rate of speed rather than stopping, however, she also stated:
Nothing in Trooper Miller's testimony has given me any idea that Trooper Miller was out there to make an investigatory stop to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bridewell
...State v. Frink, 42 Or.App. 171, 176, 600 P.2d 456 (1979); State v. Plant, 28 Or.App. 771, 773, 561 P.2d 647 (1977); Crauthers v. State, 727 P.2d 9 (Alaska App.1986); see also, 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 6.6(c) (2d ed. 4 The American Bar Association's Standard for Criminal Justice, Urban......
-
Wright v. State
...Cir. 1993); United States v. Dunbar, 470 F. Supp. 704, 706-07 (D. Conn. 1979), aff'd, 610 F.2d 807 (2d Cir. 1979); State v. Crauthers, 727 P.2d 9, 10-11 (Alaska Ct. App. 1986); State v. Harrison, 533 P.2d 1143, 1144 (Ariz. 1975); In re Clayton, 748 P.2d 401, 402-03 (Idaho 1988); State v. Mi......
-
Williams v. State
...caretaker function of police and gives officer legal right to be present in a viewpoint for plain view search); Crauthers v. State, 727 P.2d 9, 10-11 (Alaska Ct.App.1986) (finding requests for assistance from public fall within police officers' "community caretaker function"); State v. Enos......
-
Com. v. Smigliano
...detention by show of force nevertheless justified out of concern for officer's own safety and that of bystanders); Crauthers v. State, 727 P.2d 9, 10-11 (Alaska Ct.App.1986) (where defendant stopped thirty feet before a yield sign and rolled down window of his motor vehicle, officer reasona......