People v. Perez
Decision Date | 26 August 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 72063,72063 |
Citation | 175 Cal.App.3d Supp. 8,221 Cal.Rptr. 776 |
Court | California Superior Court |
Parties | 175 Cal.App.3d Supp. 8 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Jose Manuel Paez PEREZ, Defendant and Respondent. Crim. A. Appellate Department, Superior Court, San Diego County, California |
Roy R. King, El Cajon, for defendant and respondent.
The People appeal an order dismissing the case against defendant after granting a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5.
At approximately 2:15 a.m. on May 31, 1984, Officer Alvernaz observed an orange Opel automobile driven by respondent eastbound on Interstate 8. The officer's attention was drawn to the vehicle because of a "pronounced weaving" within the lane. The officer described the drift as being two feet in each direction. The officer followed the vehicle while it was weaving for about three quarters of a mile. Due to the weaving observed by the officer the vehicle was stopped. The detention was predicated on the officer's belief that the driver was under the influence of alcohol.
The municipal court found that the detention was unlawful and that weaving alone within a marked lane was not sufficient cause to stop the vehicle.
The sole issue raised on appeal is whether pronounced weaving within a lane provides an officer with reasonable cause to stop the vehicle on suspicion of driving under the influence where such weaving continues for a substantial distance, in this case for about three-quarters of a mile.
It has been firmly established that when a police officer detains a citizen the Fourth Amendment is triggered. Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889. A detention occurs "whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away," People v. Aldridge (1984) 35 Cal.3d 473, 477, 198 Cal.Rptr. 538, 674 P.2d 240, Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 16, 88 S.Ct. at p. 1877; or when an officer stops an individual because that person "may be personally involved in some criminal activity." (In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 892, 148 Cal.Rptr. 366, 582 P.2d 957.)
In order to justify a detention (People v. Aldridge, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 478, 198 Cal.Rptr. 538, 674 P.2d 240; People v. Lowen (1983) 35 Cal.3d 117, 123, 196 Cal.Rptr. 846, 672 P.2d 436; In re Tony C., supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 893, 148 Cal.Rptr. 366, 582 P.2d 957.
Although it has been clearly established in this state that weaving from one lane to another justifies an investigatory stop (see Kiskey v. State of California (1984) 36 Cal.3d 415, 204 Cal.Rptr. 428, 682 P.2d 1093; People v. Weaver (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 926, 192 Cal.Rptr. 436; People v. Goldbreath (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 988, 164 Cal.Rptr. 116; People v. Tennessee (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 788, 84 Cal.Rptr. 697), no court in California has yet addressed the issue of whether an officer may lawfully detain a driver who has been observed to be weaving within his lane. However, a motorist driving in an "eccentric manner" on a freeway has been deemed to be indicative of one driving under the influence justifying an investigatory stop. (People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 653, 74 Cal.Rptr. 423.) In addition, decisions from outside this jurisdiction have routinely held that weaving within one's lane for substantial distances are facts which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that one is driving under the influence. For instance, in State v. Bailey (1981) 51 Or.App. 173, 624 P.2d 663, an Oregon court held that weaving within a lane for a period of four or five blocks justified an investigatory stop. Similarly, in Ebona v. State of Alaska (1978) 577 P.2d 698, the defendant's vehicle was "continually weaving" but at all times remained in its lane. The court ruled that the reoccurring...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Post
...27 Va.App. 233, 498 S.E.2d 422, 423 (1998)("erratic driving" sufficient to justify investigative stop). 9. People v. Perez, 221 Cal.Rptr. 776, 776 (Cal.App.Super., 1985) ("pronounced weaving" over three-quarters of a mile sufficient for reasonable suspicion); Roberts v. State, 732 So.2d 112......
-
State v. Garcia
...would not foreclose the State from justifying [defendant's] custody by proving probable cause"). 5 Cf. People v. Perez, 221 Cal. Rptr. 776, 778 (Cal. App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1985)("[P]ronounced weaving within a lane provides an officer with reasonable cause to stop a vehicle on suspicion of d......
-
State v. Field, 68005
...investigation. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Another case directly on point is People v. Perez, 175 Cal.App.3d Supp. 8, 221 Cal.Rptr. 776 (1985). In Perez, the State appealed from an order of the municipal court dismissing the case. The appellate court held that p......
-
State v. Otto
...distances are facts which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that one is driving under the influence.” People v. Perez, 175 Cal.App.3d Supp. 8, 11, 221 Cal.Rptr. 776, 777 (1985) (citing cases). As a result, for the reasons stated above, I believe that the trial court did not err by conclud......