Unlawful Stop? Please Help...

[Ptorian]

What is the name of your state? North Carolina

I'm wondering if someone can help me determine if I was pulled over illegally and subsequently arrested for DWI. I recently hired a lawyer and he says it is a blatant case of unlawful stop, but I don't know if he is just blowing smoke up my ass just to get my business.

(Someone please read this tale, despite its length, because I need some advice. Besides, it’s pretty interesting.)

Here's the story:
I was coming out of a restaurant/bar in Charlotte, NC last Thursday and was walking to my car when an officer, who was parked on the other side of the parking lot median, approached me and asked me if I'd had anything to drink while I was inside. I gave the standard "couple o' beers" response. He told me to say my ABC's, which I did, but fast and jumbled. He told me to go back inside, and I did. I told my friends, who were sill inside, what had happened so we all decided to chill for a bit until we felt it we were safe to leave. About 45 min to an hour later, we all left and I rode with a friend to drop off another friend at his car and we then returned to my car. Conservatively, a total of an hour and a half had passed since my encounter with the officer. I got in my car and drove out of the parking lot. Now the same cop was perched at the exit of the shopping center parking lot from which I was leaving, and also from which he could not have seen me when I was actually getting into my car. (So he can't say I looked drunk when I was getting into the car.) As I pulled out of the shopping center he immediately zoomed up behind me and began to follow me. Actually, one of my friends was behind me, as she had left at the same time called me on my cell and told me that the cop had just cut in front of her to get behind me. I told her I knew and that my cruise was already set to the speed limit (45mph) and that I was just going to let him follow me as I drove on home. Anyway, he followed me for about 7 miles waiting for me to swerve or speed or something illegal so he could pull me over. I never did anything wrong, so just as I was going to cross the line into the next county, he pulled me. Believe it or not when he came to my driver's side window he said "Remember me?" (I swear I hope that is on his dash-cam video, along with the footage of me driving just fine.) Anyway, I failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested and taken to jail, where I spent the next 12 hours.

So the lawyer is saying this was an unlawful stop. He also notes that the officer's notes on the ticket mention no reason for the stop; no speeding, swerving, unsafe lane change, etc.

So do I have a case? What’s going to happen? Anyone's thoughts/advice would be sooooo appreciated.

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state? North Carolina

I'm wondering if someone can help me determine if I was pulled over illegally and subsequently arrested for DWI. I recently hired a lawyer and he says it is a blatant case of unlawful stop, but I don't know if he is just blowing smoke up my ass just to get my business.

(Someone please read this tale, despite its length, because I need some advice. Besides, it’s pretty interesting.)

Here's the story:
I was coming out of a restaurant/bar in Charlotte, NC last Thursday and was walking to my car when an officer, who was parked on the other side of the parking lot median, approached me and asked me if I'd had anything to drink while I was inside. I gave the standard "couple o' beers" response. He told me to say my ABC's, which I did, but fast and jumbled. He told me to go back inside, and I did. I told my friends, who were sill inside, what had happened so we all decided to chill for a bit until we felt it we were safe to leave. About 45 min to an hour later, we all left and I rode with a friend to drop off another friend at his car and we then returned to my car. Conservatively, a total of an hour and a half had passed since my encounter with the officer. I got in my car and drove out of the parking lot. Now the same cop was perched at the exit of the shopping center parking lot from which I was leaving, and also from which he could not have seen me when I was actually getting into my car. (So he can't say I looked drunk when I was getting into the car.) As I pulled out of the shopping center he immediately zoomed up behind me and began to follow me. Actually, one of my friends was behind me, as she had left at the same time called me on my cell and told me that the cop had just cut in front of her to get behind me. I told her I knew and that my cruise was already set to the speed limit (45mph) and that I was just going to let him follow me as I drove on home. Anyway, he followed me for about 7 miles waiting for me to swerve or speed or something illegal so he could pull me over. I never did anything wrong, so just as I was going to cross the line into the next county, he pulled me. Believe it or not when he came to my driver's side window he said "Remember me?" (I swear I hope that is on his dash-cam video, along with the footage of me driving just fine.) Anyway, I failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested and taken to jail, where I spent the next 12 hours.

So the lawyer is saying this was an unlawful stop. He also notes that the officer's notes on the ticket mention no reason for the stop; no speeding, swerving, unsafe lane change, etc.

So do I have a case? What’s going to happen? Anyone's thoughts/advice would be sooooo appreciated.

What was your BAC?

 

[Ptorian]

It was .17

 

[Ptorian]

NC

It was .17

 

[BigMistakeFl]

BigMistakeFl

A cop heard you recite the ABC's poorly after you exited a bar and you had admitted to the cop that you drank alcohol.. You went back inside, then came out an hour and a half later and drove. This is what's called probable cause and is the reason behind a DUI stop. I think you'd have a hard time proving that the cop did not have cause to suspect you of driving while impaired. Pose that to your attorney. Good luck.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

A cop heard you recite the ABC's poorly after you exited a bar and you had admitted to the cop that you drank alcohol.. You went back inside, then came out an hour and a half later and drove. This is what's called probable cause and is the reason behind a DUI stop. I think you'd have a hard time proving that the cop did not have cause to suspect you of driving while impaired. Pose that to your attorney. Good luck.

The point isn't that he recited his abc's poorly but under what theory of law the officer stopped him in the first place to instigate such a recitation.

If the facts are as they have been recited here, then the stop is questionable.

 

[BigMistakeFl]

BigMistakeFl

Yeah, I suppose it's the old question of, is coming out of a bar possibly exhibiting signs of impairment, cause for the initial stop in the parking lot. I think that's why I suggest the OP pose his / her question of "was there legitimate probable cause" to the lawyer. What we don't know is why the cop approached the OP in the first place. I think that missing information could help answer the question, unless the cop was stopping every patron who left that bar on that day.

 

[Zigner]

The point isn't that he recited his abc's poorly but under what theory of law the officer stopped him in the first place to instigate such a recitation.

If the facts are as they have been recited here, then the stop is questionable.

You're basing this on the belief of a drunk that he was doing everything legal.

 

[seniorjudge]

The point isn't that he recited his abc's poorly but under what theory of law the officer stopped him in the first place to instigate such a recitation.

If the facts are as they have been recited here, then the stop is questionable.

I respectfully disagree.

When the cop talked to the guy the first time, it was perfectly legal. The cop will say that he noticed that the guy was drunk. Then when the cop saw him 1 1/2 hours later (after which the cop would know that the alcohol was really doping him up), the cop could reasonably believe that he was still drunk and should not be operating a motor vehicle.

(I am always incredibly amazed at the number of people who drive after a cop tells them not to. But, as the old saying goes, "That's why they call it dope!")

 

[You Are Guilty]

The stop outside the restaurant is entirely justifiable, public drunkeness, while common, is still a crime

As far as the subsequent driving, I'd bet that even though the ticket may be bare, there will be some "extra" justification from the officer for the stop.

In any event, why anyone would even consider helping a .17 idiot who is out driving is beyond comprehension. I assume none of you live in his area.

 

[Ohiogal]

My question is if his BAC was .17 when he was stopped 90 minutes later, how drunk was he when he first walked out of the bar????

 

[CdwJava]

My question is if his BAC was .17 when he was stopped 90 minutes later, how drunk was he when he first walked out of the bar????

That was my thinking.

I would think that the officer saw this guy stagger out of the bar, contacted him, determined he was drunk and asked if he had some friends that could take him home. he said he did and went back inside the bar.

Smart move by the officer? No. Legal? Yes.

The question then becomes what is written by the officer in his report as his articulation for reasonable suspicion to detain the driver.

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

You Are Guilty wrote:
"The stop outside the restaurant is entirely justifiable, public drunkeness, while common, is still a crime"

I believe the contact outside the restaurant is a consentual encounter that could have turned into a detention based on reasonable suspicion developed from the contact. "Public" drunkeness includes inside a restaurant or bar (as noted in recent Texas enforcements where hotel guests were arrested in a hotel bar), but are not based on BAC. In CA, being drunk in public requires a person so intoxicated they are unable to care for the safety of themselves or others.

"When the cop talked to the guy the first time, it was perfectly legal. The cop will say that he noticed that the guy was drunk. Then when the cop saw him 1 1/2 hours later (after which the cop would know that the alcohol was really doping him up), the cop could reasonably believe that he was still drunk and should not be operating a motor vehicle."

I disagree. Unless there is more to the story, the police officer could not form the opinion the OP was impaired merely from reciting the alphabet combined with physical observations. That does not mean there could be physical observations that could lead to this conclusion, but facts would have to be invented to form this conclusion. Then, after 1 1/2 hours, unless the officer saw the person continue to drink, he would not have a reasonable basis to believe the OP's alcohol level has increased. (Arguendo there were physical signs on the first contact that would lead an officer with his training and experience to believe the OP was under the influence.)

"In any event, why anyone would even consider helping a .17 idiot who is out driving is beyond comprehension. I assume none of you live in his area."

It's not a matter of helping a .17 idiot, but of respecting the rights of everyone. When we allow the police to arrest people illegally, all kinds of bad things happen to the rest of us.

I won't get too much on the soapbox of the insanity of our current DUI laws. However, go to:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060420/ap_on_re_us/distracted_driving

to find the cause of 8 out of 10 accidents. Anyone who is doing anything beyond both hands on the wheel, looking ahead is impaired. Listening to the radio, talking on the cell phone, eating or putting on make-up are all "impairments". We've seen how study after study puts the talking on the cell phone as the same risk as driving with a .08 BAC. Now we find that there are other major risks as well.

In the future, where comprable risk comparisons are made by statistics rather than emotions, a person is seen by a police officer reach over to the glove compartment while driving to get a tissue. Whoooo goes the siren. Up walks the officer and hears the radio playing in the car. Back-up is called and the driver with the runny nose goes to *jail*. (With enhancements because the radio was playing as well.)

When those with runny noses rise up in complaint the sound heard around the country will be, "But, think of the CHILDREN!"

 

[You Are Guilty]

You Are Guilty wrote:
"The stop outside the restaurant is entirely justifiable, public drunkeness, while common, is still a crime"

I believe the contact outside the restaurant is a consentual encounter that could have turned into a detention based on reasonable suspicion developed from the contact. "Public" drunkeness includes inside a restaurant or bar (as noted in recent Texas enforcements where hotel guests were arrested in a hotel bar), but are not based on BAC. In CA, being drunk in public requires a person so intoxicated they are unable to care for the safety of themselves or others.

Valid points, but this is a NC incident. Hillbillies use a different standard of drunkeness.

"When the cop talked to the guy the first time, it was perfectly legal. The cop will say that he noticed that the guy was drunk. Then when the cop saw him 1 1/2 hours later (after which the cop would know that the alcohol was really doping him up), the cop could reasonably believe that he was still drunk and should not be operating a motor vehicle."

I didn't write this, so no comment.

"In any event, why anyone would even consider helping a .17 idiot who is out driving is beyond comprehension. I assume none of you live in his area."

It's not a matter of helping a .17 idiot, but of respecting the rights of everyone. When we allow the police to arrest people illegally, all kinds of bad things happen to the rest of us.

If the police were randomly breaking into people's houses and breathalyzing them, I'm right there fighting it. On the other hand, cutting a drunk a (huge!) break only to have him throw it in your face... not so much.

I won't get too much on the soapbox of the insanity of our current DUI laws. However, go to:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060420/ap_on_re_us/distracted_driving

to find the cause of 8 out of 10 accidents. Anyone who is doing anything beyond both hands on the wheel, looking ahead is impaired. Listening to the radio, talking on the cell phone, eating or putting on make-up are all "impairments". We've seen how study after study puts the talking on the cell phone as the same risk as driving with a .08 BAC. Now we find that there are other major risks as well.

Not exactly news that distractions of any sort detract from driving skills. However, that fact does not support of the argument that DUI is "overblown". That's the same as saying "well, yeah, crack is bad, but since more people use meth, we shouldn't worry about the crack problem."

In the future, where comprable risk comparisons are made by statistics rather than emotions, a person is seen by a police officer reach over to the glove compartment while driving to get a tissue. Whoooo goes the siren. Up walks the officer and hears the radio playing in the car. Back-up is called and the driver with the runny nose goes to *jail*. (With enhancements because the radio was playing as well.)

When those with runny noses rise up in complaint the sound heard around the country will be, "But, think of the CHILDREN!"

I'm all for enforcement of crappy driving. The problem with that is after a few months of cracking down, there would be about 12 people left on the road.

 

[tranquility]

You are guility wrote:
"I'm all for enforcement of crappy driving. The problem with that is after a few months of cracking down, there would be about 12 people left on the road."

Exactly my point. Because of what seems to be an increasing flaw in our representative democracy, a small group who is absolutely motivated on a single issue is able to dictate to everyone what the law should be. In a reasoned world, we would see that many people with a .08 BAC drive just fine and to make driving with that level a per se *crime* is foolish and takes away from the problem. The problem being that the vast majority of problems related to drunk driving is from an small minority of those arrested who are extremely impaired from drinking/drugs. Target the problem and stop making criminals out of people who are responsible and who may be better drivers than, older people, younger people, mother's with "baby on board", or cops who are running a check on a computer, talking on the radio or eating a donut.

"If the police were randomly breaking into people's houses and breathalyzing them, I'm right there fighting it. On the other hand, cutting a drunk a (huge!) break only to have him throw it in your face... not so much."

Oooh....bad example. In California, they are allowed to do nearly that. The courts have found that with probable cause, the police can break into a house to seize a person in order to compel a test for BAC based on the "exigent circumstance" of the alcohol being metabolized.

I must admit, you are truly a patriot fighting for the rights of the common man when you draw a firm line at random break-ins by the police in private residences to check to see if the resident is imbibing in a legal recreation. Is that your only limit on the matter?