State v. Atkinson

• Decision Date: 10 April 1996
• Docket Number: No. 21719,21719
• Citation: 128 Idaho 559,916 P.2d 1284
• Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Stanton E. ATKINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

Page 1284

916 P.2d 1284

128 Idaho 559

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.Stanton E. ATKINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21719.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

April 10, 1996.

Donovan & Praggastis, Michael F. Donovan(argued), Ketchum, for appellant.

Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; Charles E. Zalesky, Deputy Attorney General(argued), Boise, for respondent.

LANSING, Judge.

Stanton E. Atkinson pleaded guilty to misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol, (DUI), I.C. § 18-8004.His plea was conditional, reserving the right to appeal from the magistrate's prior denial of Atkinson's motion to suppress evidence.The district court affirmed the magistrate's decision on the suppression motion.We, like the district court, conclude that the magistrate's decision was correct.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

According to the magistrate's findings, based upon testimony at the hearing on Atkinson's suppression motion, the following facts gave rise to the charge against Atkinson.On May 7, 1993, at approximately 11:45 p.m., Captain Brian McNary of the Hailey police department was driving northbound on Main Street in Hailey, Idaho, and observed a vehicle traveling ahead of him.The vehicle, which was driven by Atkinson, moved to the left so that its left tires crossed onto or over the center line.When the vehicle had continued down Main Street for approximately two blocks, McNary saw it again veer to the left so that the tires touched but did not entirely cross the center line.The vehicle then swerved to the right across the traffic lane and touched the fog line with its right-side tires.Suspecting that the driver was intoxicated, McNary signaled Atkinson to stop, and Atkinson complied.¹Because Captain McNary was transporting a prisoner in his vehicle, he radioed another policeman on patrol, Officer Harkins, and arranged for Harkins to handle the traffic stop.Officer Harkins arrived immediately, administered field sobriety tests which Atkinson failed, and placed Atkinson under arrest for DUI.

Atkinson filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained following the traffic stop on the grounds that Captain McNary lacked sufficient cause to stop Atkinson.After an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate denied the motion.Atkinson then entered a conditional guilty plea pursuant to I.C.R. 11(a)(2), by which Atkinson reserved the right to appeal the magistrate's adverse ruling on the suppression motion.The district court, sitting in its appellate capacity, affirmed the magistrate's order.Atkinson now appeals from the district court's decision.

ANALYSIS

On appeal from a trial court's order resolving a motion to suppress evidence, we defer to the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence, but we freely review the trial court's determination as to whether constitutional standards have been satisfied in light of the facts found.State v. Naccarato, 126 Idaho 10, 12, 878 P.2d 184, 186(Ct.App.1994);State v. McAfee, 116 Idaho 1007, 1008, 783 P.2d 874, 875(Ct.App.1989).When a district court has rendered an intermediate appellate decision, we examine the record before the magistrate independently of, but with due regard for, the district court's determination.Id.

A traffic stop by a law enforcement officer constitutes a seizure of the vehicle's occupants which implicates the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1395-96, 59 L.Ed.2d 660(1979);State v. Emory, 119 Idaho 661, 809 P.2d 522(Ct.App.1991).The circumstances under which an investigative traffic stop will be consistent with Fourth Amendment protections were described in Naccarato:

A traffic stop, which constitutes a...