Opinion ID: 2119657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: reasonable suspicion to perform field sobriety tests

Text: In his second assignment of error, Prescott argues that Almquist lacked reasonable suspicion to perform field sobriety tests. Once a vehicle is lawfully stopped, a law enforcement officer may conduct an investigation reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the traffic stop. [13] In order to continue to detain a motorist, an officer must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity beyond that which initially justified the stop. [14] We have further held that an officer is required to have only a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a motorist was driving under the influence in order to expand the scope of the initial traffic stop and detain him or her for field sobriety tests. [15] Whether a police officer has a reasonable suspicion based on sufficient articulable facts depends on the totality of the circumstances. [16] Courts must determine whether reasonable suspicion exists on a case-by-case basis. [17] Reasonable suspicion entails some minimal level of objective justification for detention. It is something more than an inchoate and unparticularized hunchbut less than the level of suspicion required for probable cause. [18] In this case, Almquist testified that he conducted field sobriety tests after noting a moderate odor of alcohol coming first from Prescott's vehicle and later from Prescott himself. In addition, Almquist testified that Prescott told him that he had consumed two beers and, further, had not had anything to eat since lunch that day (the stop was at approximately 8 p.m.). This was sufficient to provide Almquist with reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests on Prescott. Prescott's second assignment of error is without merit.