While the Georgia and U.S. Constitutions guarantee that you will be free from government searches and seizures unless there is probable cause and a Warrant, based upon societal demands and nuances, Courts have carved out limited exceptions that will allow the government to interfere with our freedom and liberty in the absence of probable cause and warrants. For example, in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court established the Terry Doctrine (based upon Terry v. Ohio) which explained that a Law Enforcement Officer can make a brief stop of someone even without a Warrant or even Probable Cause if the Officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity afoot based upon articulable facts. Furthermore, the Courts have long held that if a criminal (or traffic) offense occurs within the presence of an Officer, then the Officer can stop/arrest the person without the necessity of a Warrant. Of course, these exceptions to the Warrant requirement are necessary in the mobile society in which we live.
Therefore, while it does not take much to form reasonable suspicion, the first step in defending a DUI or any Traffic Offense is to evaluate the Traffic Stop to determine whether the Officer actually can articulate facts to support a reasonable suspicion that some type of criminal activity was afoot. It is important to understand that the facts may very well not support a traffic or criminal offense in and of themselves, but the facts must be sufficient to support more than a simple hunch that the Officer has that the operator of a vehicle is committing some offense such as DUI. For example, while it is not against the law for someone to weave within one’s own lane, Georgia Courts have hinted that such an action may support a traffic stop. (However, the Courts have not held that such a stop is always justified – it is a case by case anaylsis).
In order to further illustrate and demonstrate this point, let me give you an example. Several years ago, I received a telephone call from a relative. He had been pulled over by a Trooper for travelling 50 mph in a 55 mph zone and “driving a little close to the white [fog] line,” neither of which are against the law. The Trooper immediately began asking this elderly man if he was taking any prescription medications. Thankfully, the Trooper decided not to arrest this elderly man for DUI Prescription Drug. Some people may say, “well, if he wasn’t arrested for DUI, then he must not have been DUI, and what’s the big deal?” The “Big Deal” is twofold: 1) the decision to arrest or not arrest is based upon an EXTREMELY subjective opinion; and 2) this elderly man should not have been stopped in the first place, for neither travelling 5 mph slower than the posted speed limit nor driving “close to the white line” is a violation of any traffic law and neither provides any type of reasonable suspicion of any type of criminal activity afoot. If this man had been DUI, there would have been a good chance that the case would have been thrown out of Court based upon an improper traffic stop.
Therefore, as you can see, the basis for a Traffic Stop may be invalid, and, if it is, then regardless of whether the person is DUI, the case may be dismissed due to the invalidity of the Stop. In order to assist you in determining whether you were stopped for a valid and proper reason, contact an experienced and knowledgeable DUI Attorney such as Joey Cowart to assist you.
