Title: State v. Kavanaugh

State: nebraska

Issuer: Nebraska Supreme Court

Document:

434 N.W.2d 36 (1989) 230 Neb. 889 STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Vincent Eugene KAVANAUGH, Appellant. No. 87-1125. Supreme Court of Nebraska. January 13, 1989. *37 Robert G. Scoville, of Ryan & Scoville, South Sioux City, for appellant. Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., and David Edward Cygan, Lincoln, for appellee. HASTINGS, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, WHITE, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, GRANT, and FAHRNBRUCH, JJ. BOSLAUGH, Justice. After a trial to the court, the defendant, Vincent Eugene Kavanaugh, was found guilty of driving while under the influence of alcoholic liquor and refusing to submit to a breath test under the implied consent law. The defendant was sentenced to 6 months' probation and fined $250 on each count, and his driving privileges were suspended for 60 days. Upon appeal to the district court, the judgment was affirmed. The defendant has now appealed to this court and contends that his arrest was the result of an illegal stop and that the evidence obtained as a result of the illegal stop should have been suppressed. The defendant operates a mobile home business, which is located approximately a block and a half west of the intersection of U.S. Highway 77 and old U.S. Highway 20 in South Sioux City, Nebraska. On April 23, 1987, at about 1:20 a.m., Deputy Sheriff Randall Walsh, who was on patrol, stopped at that intersection for a traffic light. While he was stopped, Walsh saw a pickup truck with a camper top drive out of the mobile home business and turn west on old Highway 20. It was a foggy night, and Walsh would not have been able to see the pickup truck except for its headlights. Walsh turned west on old Highway 20 and stopped the pickup truck about three-fourths of a mile west of the defendant's place of business. After the pickup truck had been stopped, Walsh recognized the defendant as the driver. When the defendant rolled down the window on the driver's side, Walsh noticed the odor of alcohol, and the defendant admitted he had been drinking. The defendant's eyes appeared red and watery. Walsh asked the defendant to perform several field sobriety tests, which he failed. The defendant was also unsteady on his feet. Walsh arrested the defendant and took him to the Dakota County sheriff's office. At the sheriff's office the defendant was asked to submit to a breath test, which he refused. The issue on this appeal is whether the investigatory stop of the defendant's vehicle was lawful. At the trial the defendant moved to suppress the testimony relating to the evidence gained as a result of the stop of his vehicle, as a violation of his fourth amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and of his rights under article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution. That motion was overruled. A police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for the purpose of investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. State v. Brewer, 190 Neb. 667, 212 N.W.2d 90 (1973). *38 In United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18, 101 S. Ct. 690, 694-95, 66 L. Ed. 2d 621 (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court held: As we said in State v. Longa, 211 Neb. 356, 363-64, 318 N.W.2d 733, 738-39 (1982), This lesser standard for investigative stops was recently articulated by this court in State v. Ebberson, 209 Neb. 41, 305 N.W.2d 904 (1981), and reiterated in State v. Nowicki, 209 Neb. 640, 309 N.W.2d 89 (1981). Therein, relying on United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S. Ct. 690, 66 L. Ed. 2d 621 (1981), we determined that "`an investigatory stop must be justified by objective manifestation that the person stopped is, has been, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. In determining what cause is sufficient to authorize police to stop a person, the totality of the circumstancesthe whole picture must be taken into account. "`Police officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity. The assessment of the totality of circumstances includes all of the objective observations and considerations, as well as the suspicion drawn by a trained and experienced police officer by inference and deduction that the individual stopped is or has been or is about to be engaged in criminal behavior....'" See, also, State v. Thomte, 226 Neb. 659, 413 N.W.2d 916 (1987); State v. Pierce and Wells, 215 Neb. 512, 340 N.W.2d 122 (1983); *39 State v. Ebberson, 209 Neb. 41, 305 N.W.2d 904 (1981). In this case, Walsh explained that he stopped the defendant's vehicle because he suspected that a burglary might have taken place at the defendant's business. Businesses located along old Highway 20 had experienced burglaries and vandalism. Those facts, together with the lateness of the hour and the fact that Walsh did not recognize the truck as belonging to the defendant, caused him to believe that criminal activity might have taken place and that it was his duty to stop the truck and find out what its driver had been doing at the defendant's place of business more than an hour after midnight. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Deputy Sheriff Walsh testified, AThat suspicioussuspicious activity may have possibly meant that a burglary *40 had just occurred there. In 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure, a Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, § 9.3(c) at 440 (2d ed. 1987), the author comments, In this case, the evidence as to the totality of the circumstances was such that the trial court could conclude that the investigatory stop of the defendant's vehicle by Deputy Walsh was justified. It is difficult to imagine what legitimate reason a stranger would have entering the defendant's premises at 1:20 a.m. on a foggy night when visibility was poor. As the New Jersey Supreme Court stated in State v. Davis, 104 N.J. 490, 504, 517 A.2d 859, 866-67 (1986), See, also, State v. Fillion, 474 A.2d 187 (Me.1984); People v. Bloyd, 416 Mich. 538, 331 N.W.2d 447 (1982); Leaper v. State, 753 P.2d 914 (Okla.Crim.1988); State v. Fox, 58 N.C.App. 692, 294 S.E.2d 410 (1982); People v. Ellis, 113 Ill.App.3d 314, 68 Ill.Dec. 885, 446 N.E.2d 1282 (1983); People v. Allen, 50 Cal. App. 3d 896, 123 Cal. Rptr. 80 (1975). The judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. WHITE, Justice, dissenting. "`[A]n investigatory stop must be justified by objective manifestation that the person stopped is, has been, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity....'" State v. Nowicki, 209 Neb. 640, 645, 309 N.W.2d 89, 92 (1981). In this case, Kavanaugh was leaving his mobile home business at 1:20 a.m., driving a pickup with a camper. He stated that he often worked late at his place of business. The officer testified that he saw Kavanaugh pull out of the parking lot but did not recognize the truck through the fog. He then followed the defendant for approximately 2 minutes and, after observing no aberrant driving behavior, stopped the defendant. The officer stated that his reason for the stop was that the vehicle was coming out of a business at 1:20 in the morning. No thefts or burglaries or any incidents of vandalism had been reported by Kavanaugh that day. The officer testified that there was "suspicious activity"; there had been some vandalism and other criminal activity within 1 or 2 miles of the defendant's business. There is no testimony as to the exact nature of the criminal activity nor as to how near in time the activity had occurred. These observations and suspicions do not establish an "objective manifestation" that criminal activity has been, or will be, engaged in. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." U.S. Const. amend. IV. The U.S. Supreme *42 Court has held that this protection applies not only to citizens in their homes, but also to citizens driving on the public roads. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 59 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1979). In this case, that constitutional safeguard has been abridged. Both the stop and the subsequent arrest were illegal. Therefore, any evidence arising from the unlawful conduct of the officer, including his observations of the defendant's apparent intoxication, should have been suppressed. SHANAHAN, J., joins in this dissent.