Semich v. State, A98A1557.
Decision Date | 21 August 1998 |
Docket Number | No. A98A1557.,A98A1557. |
Citation | 506 S.E.2d 216,234 Ga. App. 89 |
Parties | SEMICH v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
J. Robert Daniel, Macon, for appellant.
Otis L. Scarbary, Solicitor, Russell B. Mabrey, Jr., Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.
With the blue lights atop their nearby patrol car flashing, Officers Johnson and Wright directed traffic around a damaged utility pole at 1:30 in the morning. Officer Wright observed an approaching vehicle abruptly turn left into a residential driveway, back out, and proceed in the opposite direction. He called Officer Johnson's attention to the car, and both officers saw it weave within its lane. Suspecting intoxication, they followed in their car and saw the vehicle again weave within its lane after making a left turn. They pulled it over to investigate.
Nicholas Semich, the driver, failed a series of field sobriety tests and registered an alcohol concentration of .151 grams. He was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (OCGA § 40-6-391(a)). On appeal he challenges the denial of his motion in limine to exclude the officers' testimony as arising from a stop which violated the federal constitution.
2 (a) Failure to signal. The parties dwell on Officer Wright's testimony that Semich did not signal his left turn into the driveway. If Semich's failure to signal constituted a traffic offense, the stop was clearly authorized.3 Under OCGA § 40-6-123, no turn signal is required where there are no other moving vehicles in the vicinity.4 Officer Wright, the only witness to the turn, testified no vehicles were present. Also, weaving within one's own lane generally does not constitute a traffic offense.5 No traffic violation occurred.
The issue is whether abruptly turning around at 1:30 a.m. in an apparent effort to avoid visible police plus weaving within one's lane give police sufficient reason to conduct an investigatory stop, even though these actions do not themselves constitute a traffic offense.
(b) Weaving within lane and furtive conduct. In denying the motion in limine, the court necessarily found these actions justified a reasonable suspicion that Semich was engaged in criminal conduct. Gabbidon v. State,6 which held that weaving within one's own lane justified a stop, is not determinative because it also involved a traffic violation of impeding the flow of traffic.7 Numerous cases have held that weaving out of one's lane justifies a stop,8 but such also constitutes a traffic violation.9 Most of these cases focus on the weaving not as a traffic offense but as an indication that the driver was possibly intoxicated, which in this context authorized police to stop the driver to determine if the suspicion, a reasonable one, was accurate. "This Court has specifically determined that an officer's observation of a motorist's `weaving' may serve as sufficient reason to warrant an investigative stop for a possible DUI violation."10
Thus the behavior giving rise to the reasonable suspicion need not be a violation of the law. Roberson v. State11 held that even if the defendant's actions "did not amount to a per se traffic violation, under the totality of the circumstances ... [the officer] had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that [the defendant] was committing a traffic offense."12 Analogous is Atkins v. State,13 in which the officer saw the defendant walk unsteadily across a parking lot and then get in a car and drive away. Atkins held that even though walking unsteadily is not a crime, it can gave rise to an articulable suspicion that the defendant was intoxicated and should not be driving.
A 1980 case intimated that weaving within a lane was insufficient to justify a stop.14 But since then the law has become increasingly more stringent by gradually lessening the degree of intoxication tolerated for drivers and thus criminalizing more behavior under OCGA § 40-6-391.
In 1983 it became illegal per se to drive with an alcohol concentration of .12 grams.15 In 1988 this per se illegality attached to having .12 grams alcohol concentration within three hours of driving.16 In 1991 it was moved down to .10 grams for all drivers excepting those under 18, for whom it was moved down to .06.17 In 1994 the under-18 limit was moved down to .04,18 and in 1997 it was dropped to .02 and included those under 21.19
The smaller amounts of alcohol ingestion are behaviorally manifested by smaller deviations from the norm. Thus less pronounced deviations which can result from lesser alcohol influence can raise a reasonable suspicion of violation. As a result, the police can stop drivers who engage in erratic driving behavior, even if it is simply weaving within a lane. Semich displayed not only two instances of weaving within a lane, but also the furtive conduct of abruptly changing his course of travel as though to avoid encountering police, who were visibly present.20 Another fact was the late hour, a time when drunk driving is more common than during the day. Although turning around to avoid police is not alone sufficient to justify a stop,21 combined with weaving and the late hour it is.22
The officers had reasonable and articulable grounds to suspect Semich was engaging in criminal conduct. Denial of the motion in limine was not error.
Judgment affirmed.
1. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) State v. Armstrong, 223 Ga.App. 350, 351(2), 477 S.E.2d 635 (1996); see United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981).
2. (Citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted.) Tate v. State, 264 Ga. 53, 54(1), 440 S.E.2d 646 (1994).
3. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) () (citations omitted); State v. Bowen, 231 Ga.App. 95, 96, 498 S.E.2d 570 (1998); Dooley v. State, 221 Ga.App. 245(1), 470 S.E.2d 803 (1996).
4. State v. Goodman, 220 Ga.App. 169, 171(2), 469 S.E.2d 327 (1996); State v. Jones, 214 Ga. App. 593, 594, 448 S.E.2d 496 (1994).
5. See OCGA § 40-6-48(1).
7. See also Graves v. State, 167 Ga.App. 246, 248(3), 305 S.E.2d 913 (1983) ( ).
8. Bowen, supra, 231 Ga.App. at 96, 498 S.E.2d 570 ( ); State v. Diamond, 223 Ga.App. 164, 166, 477 S.E.2d 320 (1996) (straddling lanes); Strickland v. State, 221 Ga. App. 120, 122(2), 470 S.E.2d 508 (1996) ( ); State v. Whitfield, 219 Ga.App. 5, 6, 463 S.E.2d 728 (1995) ( ); Allenbrand v. State, 217 Ga.App. 609, 458 S.E.2d 382 (1995) ( ); Smith v. State, 216 Ga.App. 453, 454 S.E.2d 635 (1995) ( ); Huff v. State, 205 Ga.App. 557, 422 S.E.2d 664 (1992) (weaving across lines); Ramirez v. State, 192 Ga.App. 255, 384 S.E.2d 279 (1989) ( ); Pupo v. State, 187 Ga.App. 765(1), 371 S.E.2d 219 (1988) ( ).
9. OCGA § 40-6-48(1).
10. Diamond, supra, 223 Ga.App. at 166, 477 S.E.2d 320 (citations omitted); see Strickland, supra, 221 Ga.App. at 121, 470 S.E.2d 508 ( ); Whitfield, supra, 219 Ga.App. at 6, 463 S.E.2d 728 (erratic driving indicated DUI); Ramirez, supra, 192 Ga.App. at 256, 384 S.E.2d 279 ( ); Graves, supra, 167 Ga.App. at 248(3), 305 S.E.2d 913 ( ). Compare Raulerson v. State, 223 Ga. App. 556, 557(2), 479 S.E.2d 386 (1996) ( ); State v. Goodman, 220 Ga.App. 169, 172(2), 469 S.E.2d 327 (1996) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Rincon
...(Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2004). 19. Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 250, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991). 20. Semich v. State, 234 Ga.App. 89, 506 S.E.2d 216, 217 (1998) (quoting State v. Armstrong, 223 Ga.App. 350, 477 S.E.2d 635, 637 21. See generally State, Dep't of Mtr. Vehicles v. Kin......
-
Smith v. State, A98A2280.
...criminal activity." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Atkins v. State, 209 Ga.App. 70, 432 S.E.2d 661 (1993). In Semich v. State, 234 Ga.App. 89, 506 S.E.2d 216 (1998), we examined the issue of whether weaving within a lane, which is not a crime per se, justifies a brief investigatory st......
-
State v. Hanson, A99A2256.
...for a brief investigatory stop of Defendants' vehicle due to the officer's observation it was weaving in its lane of traffic. Semich v. State, 234 Ga.App. 89 (1998). 2. The public has a right to be free from "profiling" and persons who exhibit physical and/or occupational characteristics th......
-
Davis v. State, A98A1731.
...ruling on constitutional question to preserve it for appellate review). 6. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Semich v. State, 234 Ga.App. 89, 91-92, 506 S.E.2d 216 (1998). 7. See State v. Diamond, 223 Ga.App. 164, 166, 477 S.E.2d 320 (1996) (straddling lanes justified 8. See Tate v. Stat......
-
Search and seizure
...The court found that this contradicted the arguments presented by the government. The stop was unlawful. Georgia Semich v. State (1998) 234 Ga.App. 89, 506 S.E.2d 216. Police had reasonable suspicion to detain driver who, at 1:30 a.m., abruptly turned around seemingly to avoid police, and......