Alcohol & Drugs: DUI, DWI DUI/Motion to Supress Denied Appropriately?

[Iamhere]

I was pulled over for failing to stop at a stop sign (not true) which led to a DUI arrest (.09). There is a lot to this story, however, my question is on whether or not the denial of my Motion to Supress was appropriate or not. I took many pictures of all angles at the stop sign I was accused of running. It clearly showed there were obstructions in the way of the officer's view of my vehicle (I took the pictures from where I thought the officer view would be, too). The judge was very concerned of how the officer's testimony could have been so off base (the officer testified he had a clear view and there were no obsticles). The judge delayed his decision another day because he wanted to see the area for himself. The following morning, he stated he visited the sight, saw the obstructions, but marked out the minimum/maximum area of where the officer said his car was, and the closer he got to the minimum, the better view he had of the limit line of the stop sign. This is so not true -- there is a driveway there, a turn lane, not to mention this was a red curb. I also would have seen the officer sitting there thinking he was at the stop. I feel it wasn't the judge's place to do this -- I thought it was up to the DA to prove otherwise.

The judge also mentioned he had a lunch date with the DA to give her tips of the laws, etc. which I thought was inappropriate. The following day, the judge did mention he cancelled the date because he thought it would not be appropriate as the case was not yet settled.

So here I am with a first-time DUI on my record. The ironic thing about this is the DA refused to lower my offense to a wet wreckless because there was the matter of my running a stop sign.

IT's been very hard for me to let go of this.

Sorry for the length of this.

 

[CdwJava]

Well, the other thing to consider is that if you WERE impaired, your perception of the events may not have been all that good. Plus, if you failed to come to a complete stop, the issue of the line is moot because if you did not stop anywhere near it, then that would be kinda obvious.

The judge apparently decided that the officer had a sufficiently unobstructed view to see the movement of your vehicle ... whether that necessitated a clear and unobstructed view of the limit line would depend on the officer's testimony. If he agrees that you stopped, and the dispute is whether you stopped before or after the limit line, then a view of the line can be relevant. However, if he testified that he did not see you stop, then a view of the line is NOT relevant.

In the end, if the stop was based on reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime was committed, and this reasonable suspicion has not been countered, then the detention and subsequent contact are good. Thus, any evidence obtained as a result of the subsequent contact would also be good.

- Carl

So, does your attorney think you have any grounds to appeal? If so, what is that?

- Carl

 

[Iamhere]

He mentioned it was an option but did not go into details. In hindsight I would have hired an attorney who specialized in DUIs.

I just wanted to know if it was the judge's place to do this... apparently it is.

Thank you so much for your quick response.