State v. Vaughn
| Decision Date | 17 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. K84-70,K84-70 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank D. VAUGHN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Frank A. Flynn, Allen, Gooch, Bourgeois, Breaux & Robison, P.C., Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.
David F. Hutchins, Sp. Asst. Dist. Atty., Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GUIDRY, FORET and KNOLL, JJ.
Defendant, Frank Vaughn, was convicted of driving while intoxicated--second offense, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:98. He applied to this Court to review his one assignment of error, to-wit: the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence against him.
The basis of his assignment is the argument that the police officer lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion that the defendant was committing, had committed, or was about to commit a crime which was needed to effectuate the necessary reasonable cause to stop the defendant. State v. Williams, 416 So.2d 91 (La.1982); LSA-C.Cr.P. Article 215.1.
The police officer's testimony, at the hearing on the motion to suppress, reflected that he based his stop of the defendant on the following observations:
The arresting officer also testified that he followed the defendant's vehicle for a distance of about one and one-half city blocks from the time that he first saw him, to the time of arrest. The officer was vague in parts of his testimony. For example, he could not remember whether there was another police officer in his car with him at the time of the arrest. He does not remember whether the defendant indicated his intention to turn right on Taft Street, on which street he was arrested. There is no testimony by the arresting officer that defendant's driving presented actual danger to anyone, such as to oncoming cars in the opposite lane, or that when defendant swayed in his own lane, just in what fashion this was done, e.g., whether from side to side or a matter of inches, etc.
It is the opinion of this Court that the defendant's actions crossing six inches over the center line and traveling thus for approximately ten...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jackson
...we stand convinced that the pattern of operation described here exceeded the "minor deviations" discussed in State v. Vaughn, 448 So.2d 915 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984), heavily relied upon by defendant. Hence, the record fully discloses probable cause for the initial investigatory In certain situ......
-
State v. Waters
...stop. Accordingly, the trial court should have granted defendant's motion to suppress. See and compare State v. Vaughn, 448 So.2d 915, 916 (La.App. 3 Cir.1984) (per curiam) in which the court found the defendant's actions crossing six inches over the center line and traveling for approximat......
-
State v. Waters
...Cir.1991)(vehicle drifted roughly one-half its width over the right-hand fog line of a divided highway); but see State v. Vaughn, 448 So.2d 915, 916 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984) (vehicle crossing six inches over center fog line for approximately 10 feet and then weaving in its own lane did not giv......
-
State v. Elias
...489 So.2d 286 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); State v. Eppinette, 478 So.2d 679 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1985). But see, however, State v. Vaughn, 448 So.2d 915 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984). The right to make an investigatory stop and question the particular individual detained must be based upon reasonable caus......
-
Search and seizure
...line, and back to center, and then to the center line. McVan was also traveling 10 mph under the speed limit. State v. Vaughn (1984) 448 So.2d 915. The court determined that the o൶cer lacked reasonable sus-picion for the stop. The vehicle crossed over the center line about 6 inches for ap......