Rittman v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 82592
| Decision Date | 08 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 82592,No. 3,82592,3 |
| Parties | 1994 OK CIV APP 19 Donald F. RITTMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellee. Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Russell D. Hall, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Max Everett Ferrell, Jr., Oklahoma City, for appellant.
Earl L. Reeves, Jr., Michelle R. Day, Oklahoma City, for appellee.
A police officer was entering the parking lot of a restaurant when he was approached by some unidentified citizens. They pointed out a truck in the parking lot and an individual in that truck, and asked the officer to make contact with the individual in the truck because they believed him to be intoxicated. The individual in the truck was Appellant, Donald F. Rittman (Rittman).
The officer observed Rittman drive his truck a few feet out of its parking space, and then drive it back into the parking space. He turned on his emergency light and contacted Rittman. Rittman displayed unsteadiness on his feet, slurred speech, and he had the odor of alcohol about him. A second officer was called to come and observe Rittman. The second officer promptly responded and observed Rittman. Both officers believed him to be intoxicated. Rittman was then arrested.
After he was arrested, Rittman was asked to take a breathalyzer test. He refused. After a hearing, Rittman's driving privileges were revoked for 180 days by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) for refusing to submit to the breathalyzer test as required by the implied consent law. 47 O.S.1991 § 751 et seq. Rittman requested a hearing before DPS and the revocation was upheld. He appealed to the District Court, which sustained the revocation. This appeal followed.
In Abdoo v. Dept. of Public Safety, 788 P.2d 1389, 1393 (Okl.App.1990) the court said:
On appeal from orders of implied consent revocations, the appellate courts may not reverse or disturb the findings below unless the lower court's determinations are found to be erroneous as a matter of law or lacking sufficient evidentiary foundation.
In Leaper v. State, 753 P.2d 914 (Okl.Cr.1988) the Court indicated that:
[I]t is well established that police have a 'right and a duty to investigate all unusual and suspicious circumstances.' Atterberry v. State, 726 P.2d 898, 899 (Okl.Cr.1986). This is the duty which arises out of the central role of police in the prevention and detection of crime. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880-1881, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). When in accordance with this duty, the police stop an automobile on the road, they need not actually observe the violation of any law to have probable cause to stop that automobile Our initial inquiry must be whether there was a valid investigatory stop. We find that the initial stop was valid. It was based on an "anonymous" tip from the two unidentified citizens. They specifically pointed out Rittman and that he was in control of a truck, to the police officer and informed the police officer that Rittman's behavior was indicative of drunkenness. In Atterberry v. State, 724 P.2d 898 (Okl.1986), a defendant was stopped based on information by a woman jogger that Atterberry was behaving suspiciously. After an initial investigatory stop, the officer observed a crime being committed in his presence (Atterberry dropped a narcotic substance). At that point, the officer made a warrantless arrest.
Such is the case here. A citizen informed the officer of Rittman's suspicious behavior. The officer observed Rittman in control of his truck and actually driving the truck. These...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McChesney v. State
...1988); People v. Rance, 227 A.D.2d 936, 644 N.Y.S.2d 447, 447 (1996); State v. Bryl, 477 N.W.2d 814, 817 (N.D.1991); Rittman v. State, 875 P.2d 439, 441 (Okla.Ct.App.1994); State v. Perrin, 143 Or.App. 123, 923 P.2d 1249, 1251 (1996); State v. Lownes, 499 N.W.2d 896, 900 (S.D.1993); State v......
-
City of Naperville v. Schiavo
...App.3d 409, 416-18, 717 N.E.2d 1153, 1158-59 (1998); State v. Sailo, 910 S.W.2d 184, 189 (Tex.App.1995); Rittman v. Department of Public Safety, 875 P.2d 439, 440-41 (Okl. App.1994); People v. Willard 183 Cal. App.3d Supp. 5, 6-7, 228 Cal.Rptr. 895, 895-96 (1986); State v. Davis, 393 N.W.2d......
-
State v. Slater
...State v. Bryl, 477 N.W.2d 814 (N.D. 1991); State v. Ramey, 129 Ohio App.3d 409, 717 N.E.2d 1153 (1998); Rittman v. State ex rel. Dept. of P. S., 875 P.2d 439 (Okla. App. 1994); State v. Lownes, 499 N.W.2d 896 (S.D. 1993); State v. Sailo, 910 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. App. 1995); Kaysville City v. Mu......
-
Kaysville City v. Mulcahy
...People v. Rance, 227 A.D.2d 936, 644 N.Y.S.2d 447, 447 (1996); State v. Bryl, 477 N.W.2d 814, 817 (N.D.1991); Rittman v. State, 875 P.2d 439, 441 (Okla.Ct.App.1994); State v. Perrin, 143 Or.App. 123, 923 P.2d 1249, 1251 (1996); State v. Lownes, 499 N.W.2d 896, 900 (S.D.1993); State v. Sailo......