Opinion ID: 2449444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Trooper Williams's Further Detention Was Reasonable Because the Immediate Odor of Alcohol Constituted New Reasonable Suspicion, Which Justified Further Investigation

Text: ¶ 27 Having determined that it was constitutionally reasonable for the Trooper to approach Mr. Morris to offer an explanation for the stop, we now examine the Trooper's conduct after he explained his mistake to Mr. Morris to determine whether any further detention was justified. Mr. Morris argues that even if we hold that it was constitutional for the Trooper to offer an explanation, any detention beyond this point was unreasonable in duration and unlawful in scope. The State disagrees. The State argues that the Trooper was justified in his further detention of Mr. Morris because Trooper Williams immediately gained new reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when he detected the odor of alcohol emanating from the car. We agree with the State. ¶ 28 At oral argument, the parties disputed when exactly the Trooper detected the odor of alcohol, and unfortunately, due to the sensory limitations of reviewing a video recording, we cannot resolve this dispute. Thus, we must rely on the record before the district court to make this determination. At the preliminary hearing, Trooper Williams testified that as soon as Mr. Morris rolled down his window, he could smell the odor of alcohol. The district court relied on this testimony, implicitly acknowledging the officer's credibility. In its order, the district court stated: If [the officer's] brief contact generated reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, further detention was justified. That is what happened here. [Trooper] Williams's first contact with Morris generated a whiff of an alcoholic beverage, which eventually led to an arrest for DUI. [52] Because the trial court was in the best position to evaluate the testimony of the officer, we must give deference to its factual finding that immediately upon contact with the driver, Trooper Williams detected the odor of alcohol. [53] ¶ 29 Taking this fact as true, [54] we further conclude that the smell of alcohol emanating from Mr. Morris's vehicle was enough to generate new reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, thus justifying further detention. [55] The standard for reasonable suspicion is relatively low. Indeed, `the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level required for probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard.' [56] `The specific and articulable facts required to support reasonable suspicion are most frequently based on an investigating officer's own observations and inferences.' [57] If the officer concludes that he has reasonable suspicion, he must diligently [pursue] a means of investigation that [is] likely to confirm or dispel [his] suspicions quickly. [58] 557 30 Here, Trooper Williams smelled alcohol as soon as Mr. Morris rolled down his window. From this smell, the Trooper could reasonably infer that Mr. Morris had been drinking and thus the Trooper was justified in taking steps to determine whether Mr. Morris had consumed enough alcohol to exceed the legal limit allowed while operating a vehicle. Trooper Williams asked Mr. Morris if he had been drinking. Mr. Morris denied having anything to drink. Suspecting that Mr. Morris may be lying, the Trooper then asked Mr. Morris to blow into the Trooper's hand so he could determine whether the odor of alcohol was coming from Mr. Morris's breath. Detecting the smell of alcohol, Trooper Williams then conducted a series of field sobriety tests to confirm his suspicion that Mr. Morris was intoxicated. After approximately twenty minutes, Trooper Williams confirmed that Mr. Morris was illegally driving under the influence of alcohol and put him under arrest. This sequence of events demonstrates that Trooper Williams acted reasonably during the encounter and that he quickly and diligently took steps to respond to his building suspicions. We thus conclude that the further detention of Mr. Morris was reasonable in duration and scope and therefore constitutional.