Post by KC on Dec 29, 2006 23:27:42 GMT -5
Slow driving is not sufficient justification for stopping a motorist according to a Nevada Supreme Court ruling issued earlier this month.
"The fact that a motorist is driving slowly does not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion justifying an investigative stop," the court concluded.
The case began on July 24, 2005 when Pyramid Police Officer Michael Durham noticed a slow moving white pickup around 12:45am on Pyramid Lake Highway. Durham said he ordered the truck to pull over because it was doing 48 MPH in a 65 zone and he suspected that the driver, Abraham Rincon, was under the influence of alcohol (DUI).
Durham offered conflicting testimony about whether the car weaved, otherwise there was no reason given for the initial traffic stop other than speed. A subsequent blood test later showed Rincon had a blood alcohol content of 0.10, slightly above the 0.08 legal limit.
"In order for a traffic stop to comply with the Fourth Amendment, there must be, at a minimum, reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusion," the court wrote. "Reasonable suspicion is not a stringent standard, but it does require something more than a police officer's hunch.... While there is a compelling public policy interest to protect Nevadans from drunk drivers, that interest is not served by allowing a police officer unfettered discretion to stop a driver for what may very well be a prudent driving decision."
The high court ordered a trial judge to reconsider Rincon's case in light of the ruling that slow driving is not sufficient justification for a traffic stop.
www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1510.asp
"The fact that a motorist is driving slowly does not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion justifying an investigative stop," the court concluded.
The case began on July 24, 2005 when Pyramid Police Officer Michael Durham noticed a slow moving white pickup around 12:45am on Pyramid Lake Highway. Durham said he ordered the truck to pull over because it was doing 48 MPH in a 65 zone and he suspected that the driver, Abraham Rincon, was under the influence of alcohol (DUI).
Durham offered conflicting testimony about whether the car weaved, otherwise there was no reason given for the initial traffic stop other than speed. A subsequent blood test later showed Rincon had a blood alcohol content of 0.10, slightly above the 0.08 legal limit.
"In order for a traffic stop to comply with the Fourth Amendment, there must be, at a minimum, reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusion," the court wrote. "Reasonable suspicion is not a stringent standard, but it does require something more than a police officer's hunch.... While there is a compelling public policy interest to protect Nevadans from drunk drivers, that interest is not served by allowing a police officer unfettered discretion to stop a driver for what may very well be a prudent driving decision."
The high court ordered a trial judge to reconsider Rincon's case in light of the ruling that slow driving is not sufficient justification for a traffic stop.
www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1510.asp