State v. Placek, Cr. N
| Decision Date | 23 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | Cr. N |
| Citation | 386 N.W.2d 36 |
| Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Barbara PLACEK, Defendant and Appellant. o. 1140. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Charles Whitman, Asst. State's Atty., Bismarck, for defendant and appellant.
Rosenberg & Baird, Bismarck, for defendant and appellant; argued by La Roy Baird.
Barbara Placek appeals from a judgment of conviction of driving while under suspension (DUS) in violation of North Dakota Century Code Sec. 39-06-42. We affirm.
Placek stopped her vehicle at an intersection in Bismarck, intending to make a right turn. Using the appropriate hand signal, Placek began to turn right but, instead, proceeded straight through the intersection and, after again using a hand signal, turned into a parking lot.
A North Dakota Highway Patrol officer, who had been stopped immediately behind Placek at the intersection, followed her into the parking lot. Upon inquiry, the officer was informed that Placek's turn signals did not operate. He issued Placek a ticket instructing her to have the lights on her vehicle repaired. The officer also checked Placek's driver's license, discovered it had been suspended, and charged Placek with DUS in violation of NDCC Sec. 39-06-42.
Placek filed a motion to suppress the evidence that she was driving under suspension. The motion was denied. Placek was convicted of DUS and appealed.
Placek asserts that the denial of her suppression motion should be reversed because the trial court erred in holding that the officer's stop of her vehicle was legal. Placek claims that the officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that she was engaged in illegal conduct and, consequently, the stop of her vehicle and the subsequent search were unlawful.
A trial court's denial of a suppression motion will be reversed if, after resolving conflicts in the testimony in favor of affirmance, there is insufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court's determination. State v. Ronngren, 361 N.W.2d 224 (N.D.1985). On appeal, we recognize the significance of the trial court's opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses, by according great deference to its decision in suppression matters. Id.
The law governing investigative stops of automobiles is clear: an officer must have an articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is violating the law in order to legally stop a vehicle. State v. Indvik, 382 N.W.2d 623 (N.D.1986); State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...speeding]; Wibben v. North Dakota Highway Comm'r, 413 N.W.2d 329 (N.D.1987) [officer verifies details of anonymous tip]; State v. Placek, 386 N.W.2d 36 (N.D.1986) [rear lights not operating]; State v. Schwartz, 474 N.W.2d 461 (1991) [vehicle matched description of that involved in previous ......
-
State v. Sarhegyi, Cr. N
...speeding]; Wibben v. North Dakota Highway Comm'r, 413 N.W.2d 329 (N.D.1987) [officer verifies details of anonymous tip]; State v. Placek, 386 N.W.2d 36 (N.D.1986) [rear lights not operating]; State v. Schwartz, 239 Neb. 84, 474 N.W.2d (1991) [vehicle matched description of that involved in ......
-
State v. Birk
...we give deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause, we only do so when there is a factual dispute. See State v. Placek, 386 N.W.2d 36 (N.D.1986); State v. Ronngren, 361 N.W.2d 224 (N.D.1985). Here, there is no factual dispute. The question is whether the undisputed facts co......
-
State v. Kenner
...loud engine]; State v. Smith, 452 N.W.2d 86 (N.D.1990) [beer bottles around car, suspicion of open-bottle violation]; State v. Placek, 386 N.W.2d 36 (N.D.1986) [rear lights not ¶14 In the present case, we have neither information from another officer nor the arresting officer's own observat......