Court: Good reason needed to inspect drivers
By MATT GOURAS - Associated Press - 1/3/08
The Montana Supreme Court says a police officer was wrong to initiate a traffic investigation after seeing a couple kissing in a car on the side of the road, and threw out some evidence that was used to gain a drunken driving conviction.
The high court said the state’s constitutional right to privacy sets a high bar for reasons that police officers can engage in traffic stops. The law requires officers to either suspect criminal activity or believe someone is in danger.
Neither was the case the Laurel arrest where an officer saw a car pulled off the side of the road, believed it may have been having mechanical trouble and decided to further investigate. The Yellowstone County sheriff’s deputy then saw a couple kissing and “engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior.”
The officer, intending to discourage the couple and ask them to move along, approached the car and found a beer can outside the door and a drunk driver.
Randy E. Graham was cited, and later convicted, for drunken driving and failure to carry insurance.
The Supreme Court said the officer did not have reason to justify the October 2005 traffic stop.
Prosecutors argued that the officer’s sight of the couple kissing and an attempt by one to “mount” the other in a remote public place in broad daylight was enough to warrant the traffic investigation.
The high court disagreed.
“Graham and (Mary Ann) Strauser’s behavior, while perhaps offensive to (the officer’s) moral sensibilities, is not criminal activity,” Justice Patricia Cotter wrote in the 4-1 decision, issued Monday. “Nor does it indicate that criminal wrongdoing is occurring.”
The court also ruled that the officer’s stop was not supported by the “community care doctrine,” which allows investigation if an officer believes someone is in peril.
“We reject the notion that the community caretaker doctrine justifies an investigatory stop based on nothing more than a desire by officers to ‘move someone along’ or prevent ‘inappropriate public behavior,’ ” Cotter wrote. “The state is overreaching to suggest the doctrine supports such actions by government officials.”
The court reversed a District Court’s decision which denied a motion to suppress evidence gathered in the stop, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Justice Jim Rice disagreed with the court’s majority opinion. He said the officer had the right to investigate.
“However, from now on, officers will only be able to wave as they drive by.”
By MATT GOURAS - Associated Press - 1/3/08
The Montana Supreme Court says a police officer was wrong to initiate a traffic investigation after seeing a couple kissing in a car on the side of the road, and threw out some evidence that was used to gain a drunken driving conviction.
The high court said the state’s constitutional right to privacy sets a high bar for reasons that police officers can engage in traffic stops. The law requires officers to either suspect criminal activity or believe someone is in danger.
Neither was the case the Laurel arrest where an officer saw a car pulled off the side of the road, believed it may have been having mechanical trouble and decided to further investigate. The Yellowstone County sheriff’s deputy then saw a couple kissing and “engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior.”
The officer, intending to discourage the couple and ask them to move along, approached the car and found a beer can outside the door and a drunk driver.
Randy E. Graham was cited, and later convicted, for drunken driving and failure to carry insurance.
The Supreme Court said the officer did not have reason to justify the October 2005 traffic stop.
Prosecutors argued that the officer’s sight of the couple kissing and an attempt by one to “mount” the other in a remote public place in broad daylight was enough to warrant the traffic investigation.
The high court disagreed.
“Graham and (Mary Ann) Strauser’s behavior, while perhaps offensive to (the officer’s) moral sensibilities, is not criminal activity,” Justice Patricia Cotter wrote in the 4-1 decision, issued Monday. “Nor does it indicate that criminal wrongdoing is occurring.”
The court also ruled that the officer’s stop was not supported by the “community care doctrine,” which allows investigation if an officer believes someone is in peril.
“We reject the notion that the community caretaker doctrine justifies an investigatory stop based on nothing more than a desire by officers to ‘move someone along’ or prevent ‘inappropriate public behavior,’ ” Cotter wrote. “The state is overreaching to suggest the doctrine supports such actions by government officials.”
The court reversed a District Court’s decision which denied a motion to suppress evidence gathered in the stop, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Justice Jim Rice disagreed with the court’s majority opinion. He said the officer had the right to investigate.
“However, from now on, officers will only be able to wave as they drive by.”
