Roybal was stopped for suspicion of DUI when his live-in girlfriend called police and reported a domestic violence incident in which they had both been drinking. During the call, Roybal drove away from the scene and the dispatcher sent out the bulletin on the possible DUI. Roybal was pulled over; he failed the field sobriety tests, and was arrested for DUI. He moved to suppress the evidence from the stop for lack of reasonable suspicion. The trial court denied the motion. Roybal appealed. The Court of Appeals found that a personally involved informant is less reliable, and therefore overturned the conviction. The State appealed.
The Supreme Court found that reasonable suspicion may be based on a dispatchers bulletin. The Court further found that a citizen informant is presumed reliable and that there is no reason to rebut that presumption because the informant is personally involved. As a result, the Cour reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Roybal’s conviction.
Dissent: Judge Nehring agrees with the legal findings of the case, but disagrees with the outcome. Nehring particularly disagrees with the finding that a statement by an informant that another has been drinking and is now driving is sufficient for reasonable suspicion that the party is driving under the influence.
Tags: Utah v. Roybal, 2010 UT 34, (Utah Supreme Court, May 14, 2010).
Roybal was stopped for suspicion of DUI when his live-in girlfriend called police and reported a domestic violence incident in which they had both been drinking. During the call, Roybal drove away from the scene and the dispatcher sent out the bulletin on the possible DUI. Roybal was pulled over; he failed the field sobriety tests, and was arrested for DUI. He moved to suppress the evidence from the stop for lack of reasonable suspicion. The trial court denied the motion. Roybal appealed. The Court of Appeals found that a personally involved informant is less reliable, and therefore overturned the conviction. The State appealed.
The Supreme Court found that reasonable suspicion may be based on a dispatchers bulletin. The Court further found that a citizen informant is presumed reliable and that there is no reason to rebut that presumption because the informant is personally involved. As a result, the Cour reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Roybal’s conviction.
Dissent: Judge Nehring agrees with the legal findings of the case, but disagrees with the outcome. Nehring particularly disagrees with the finding that a statement by an informant that another has been drinking and is now driving is sufficient for reasonable suspicion that the party is driving under the influence.
Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Roybal051410.pdf
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment