Field Sobriety Tests Archives

S-2018-952

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 17, 2019
Post category:S

### COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ### STATE OF OKLAHOMA ### CASE NO. S-2018-952 **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** Appellant, v. **JOHN GLENN MORGAN** Appellee. **OPINION** *Rowland, J.:* The State of Oklahoma charged John Glenn Morgan with possession of a controlled drug, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and unsafe lane change. Following a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of Morgan's vehicle during a traffic stop, the district court granted the motion, resulting in the dismissal of two felony counts against Morgan. The State appeals this decision, claiming errors in the district court's evaluation of the traffic stop's duration, Morgan's consent to a search, the justification for continued detention, and the applicability of an independent source doctrine. **BACKGROUND** On September 5, 2018, Owasso Police Officer Josua Goins stopped Morgan after witnessing reckless driving. During the stop, a drug dog was brought to screen the vehicle. After the dog alerted, officers found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. The district court later ruled that the extended detention to wait for the drug dog was not supported by reasonable suspicion after the initial traffic violation was addressed. ### DISCUSSION #### Proposition 1: Proper Evaluation of Duration of the Stop The court acknowledges that any motorist has the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under both the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions. A traffic stop should be limited to its purpose, and any extended detention must be justified through reasonable suspicion. The district court considered the duration of the stop and determined that once Officer Goins had administered necessary tests and checks, he had no basis for further detention and should have issued a citation. #### Proposition 2: Consent to Search and Duration Requirements The State argues that Morgan's consent to search the trailer should extend the permissible duration of the stop. Still, the court finds that the time spent inspecting the trailer after the sober tests and inspection does not justify further detention without any additional reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. #### Proposition 3: Justification for Extended Detention The State failed to provide sufficient justification for extending the detention beyond investigating the traffic violation. The details already addressed during the stop contradicted the necessity for prolonged inquiry based on Morgan's logbook, a secondary issue due to the unavailability of a trooper to assist. #### Proposition 4: Independent Source Doctrine The State contended that any evidence obtained during the illegal extension could be justified under the independent source doctrine; however, the trial court found no separate basis for the initial stop's extension that would legitimize the evidence obtained afterward. ### DECISION The Court affirms the district court's ruling to grant Morgan's motion to suppress. The evidence obtained during the extended stop is inadmissible, reinforcing the importance of adhering to constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure during traffic stops. **Affirmed**. **Concurrences**: Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, Hudson. [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-952_1734278226.pdf)

M-2004-66

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 5, 2005
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2004-66, Foy Anthony Boyd appealed his conviction for Driving While Impaired (DWI). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Boyd’s judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Boyd was convicted in the District Court of Coal County after a jury trial. He was sentenced to pay court costs and a fine because he was found guilty of DWI. Boyd argued that he should not have been convicted because he believed the results of his breath test should not have been used as evidence. He claimed that the rules about how the breath test should be given were not followed, so the results were not valid. The state, which was against Boyd in the case, argued that they did not make a mistake and that there was enough evidence to convict him without the breath test results. However, the court pointed out that it was the responsibility of the state to prove that all rules were followed when giving the breath test. The state did not show what the relevant rules were or that the officers followed them properly. Boyd presented evidence showing that the breath test was not conducted according to the rules that the Board had in place. The state just had officers say they believed the rules were followed without providing the actual rules or clearing up the concerns about them. The court decided that this was a significant error. Even though officers testified that Boyd showed signs of being impaired before the breath test was done, the court concluded that the use of the test in the trial was a violation of Boyd's rights. Since the state didn't prove that the breath test was done correctly, the court believed Boyd deserved a new trial. Boyd asked for his conviction to be completely dismissed. However, the court felt that it was fairer to allow the state to have another chance to present the case with proper evidence. If the state could show that the breath test was given correctly in the retrial, they could use those results against Boyd. The court ordered that Boyd's conviction be overturned and that the case be sent back for a new trial where the state could fix the issues with the evidence. In the dissenting opinion, the judge believed that the evidence supporting Boyd’s conviction was strong enough even without the breath test. This judge pointed out that the officers had seen signs of intoxication in Boyd, like the smell of alcohol, his bloodshot eyes, and his poor performance on sobriety tests. The judge argued that Boyd's guilty verdict should stand since traditional signs of impairment by officers could be enough for a conviction.

F-2002-653

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 2, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-653, Carole Jean Arnold appealed her conviction for Driving While Under the Influence and Driving While License is Suspended. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Carole Jean Arnold was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Payne County. The jury decided she should spend five years in prison and pay a $500 fine for driving while under the influence. For driving with a suspended license, the jury decided on one year in prison and another $500 fine. The trial judge ruled that the fines would be suspended, but Carole didn't agree with the conviction. In their review, the court looked at several issues that Carole raised. First, she argued that there was not enough evidence to prove she was intoxicated when she was driving. However, the court found that the evidence was strong enough. There were officers who testified that they smelled alcohol on her breath, noticed her speech was slurred, her eyes were bloodshot, and that she was having trouble standing up. Carole admitted to drinking alcohol before driving, which supported the jury's conclusion. Second, Carole claimed the trial court made a mistake by not correctly telling the jury about possible punishments. The court agreed that this was a mistake because the jury should have been aware of more options regarding punishment. Since the defense attorney did not object during the trial, it was still considered a major error that needed to be corrected. Because of this mistake, the court changed Carole's prison sentence to two years instead of the longer one originally given. The third issue Carole had was about a test called the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, which was used to check her level of intoxication. The court agreed that there were rules about when scientific evidence can be used at trials, and those rules were not followed when this test's results were allowed. However, the court also decided that this error was not serious enough to have changed the jury's decision, so it didn’t matter much in the end. Lastly, Carole felt her overall punishment was too harsh. Because the court already changed the length of her sentence due to the earlier mistake, they found that they did not need to make any other changes. In the end, the court upheld Carole's conviction but changed her sentence to two years in prison. One judge disagreed with modifying her sentence, believing the jury's maximum sentence was appropriate and that the results of the test were acceptable in court.