|
“Probable Cause” to pull over a driver can be scrutinized in a drunk driving case in Los Angeles in the same way that it would be questioned in any other type of criminal case. The following are typical scenarios in DUI cases.
Stop
If the prosecution fails to prove that there was, indeed, a good reason to stop the motorist, then with the exception of observations of his/her driving, all evidence acquired as a result of stopping the suspect is rendered unusable in court.
Detention
If there was probable cause to pull over a driver suspected of driving under the influence, then the prosecution has to explain the reasoning behind holding the suspect for investigation. If they fail to demonstrate with facts valid reasons for having detained the driver for questioning, beyond a short stop, then all evidence acquired after stopping the driver can be suppressed.
Arrest
If there was probable cause not just to pull over the suspect but to subject him/her to a field investigation, i.e. perform field sobriety tests, questioning, etc., then the prosecution still has to prove that the driver was intoxicated enough to justify an arrest. In the absence of such proof, the results of any field investigation test can be suppressed. Further, there must also exist the authority to arrest, involving the question of whether the offense was committed in the officer’s presence.
In order to show probable cause, the prosecution has to prove that there was surmounting evidence at each stage: stop, detention, and arrest. Insufficient evidence at any of the three stages subjects evidence acquired in subsequent stages to suppression.
There is a large volume of federal and California cases as precedents defining, in general terms, what and how much probable cause can justify stopping, detaining, and arresting a suspect. These precedents can help suppress evidence against the defendant. |
