29ASR2d01
[29ASR2d01]
Plaintiff
v.
JOHN BERRY aka JOHN ROE, Defendant
District Court
of
TR #131687
[1] For a valid arrest of a driver
involved in an accident under A.S.C.A. § 22.0803, an officer at the scene of an
accident must conduct a persona investigation, and, upon reasonable grounds to
believe a misdemeanor traffic offense (or infraction) has occurred, issue a
traffic citation.
[2]
A.S.C.A. § 22.0803 authorizes an investigating officer to view an
accident scene and follow any driver involved therein who is receiving medical
treatment and, if reasonable grounds exist to believe a misdemeanor traffic
offense (or infraction) has occurred, to issue that driver a traffic citation.
[3] A.S.C.A. § 22.0803 does not apply to
felonies. Under A.S.C.A. § 22.0708 the
injury to any person resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle by
a person under the influence of intoxicating liquor creates a felony
offense. Officers may upon reasonable
grounds, arrest persons found near the scene of a felony within a short time
after its commission. See A.S.C.A.
§ 46.0805 (3).
Before WARD, District Court Judge.
Counsel: For Plaintiff, Falefatu Utu-Ala`ilima
For
Defendant, Aumoeualogo, Salanoa
S.
Order:
This matter came on regularly before the
Court on
motion to suppress evidence.
The court heard testimony from Sg. Mikaele and Officer Fuifatu. The
defendant also gave limited testimony on the extent of his injuries.
The essential facts are as follows: Sgt Mikaele came upon defendant’s vehicle in a ditch near Vaitogi. Defendant
was injured, (a cut above his [29ASR2d02] eye), and Sgt. Mikaele
radioed the O.M.V. substation and the E.M.S. that defendant would be
transported to the O.M.V. substation for treatment. After being treated by the E.M.S. at the
O.M.V. and after Sgt. Mikaele had left, field
sobriety tests were conducted by Officer Fuifatu. Upon Defendant’s failure to pass these tests,
defendant was subjected to a breathalizer test after
being arrested for driving under the influence (“D.U.I”).
At some later time in the evening,
defendant and his family members were allowed to push his vehicle out of the
ditch. This is, at least, what the court
understood to be Officer Fuifatu’s testimony. Also, at some point after the arrest, Officer
Fuifatu inspected the accident scene, most likely at
the time the vehicle was removed from the ditch.
The issue before the court is whether
the arrest for D.U.I. was valid.
By way of discussion the court notes
that Officer Fuifatu had information from Sgt. Mikaele that defendant’s vehicle was involved in an
accident and the defendant was injured by that accident. As this court has previously ruled, a
motorist stopped by a traffic officer may be detained briefly by that officer,
upon a reasonable belief that the driver was under the influence, until a
qualified officer may be summoned by radio to administer field sobriety
tests. This court has also previously
ruled that a person who was pursued for a traffic offense by a police officer,
apprehended, identified, and taken into custody by another officer, taken to
the police station, and subsequently administered field sobriety tests and then
arrested for D.U.I. could not have been legally arrested at the police station.
The instant case appears to fall
precisely midway between the court’s prior rulings. This defendant was in the custody of the
police and at the police sub-station when the field sobriety tests were administered. Yet, Sgt. Mikaele
was not qualified to administer field sobriety tests and upon first procuring
medical attention for the defendant, turned him over to Officer Fuifatu for further investigation. Counsel argued that the previous rulings of
this court support their respective positions on the validity of this
arrest. Indeed, both are equally correct
in that regard.
[1] This case is
different, however, since it involves a motor vehicle accident. The Legislature has specifically set forth
its requirements for a valid arrest of a driver involved in an accident under
A.S.C.A. § 22.0803. The requirements are
that an officer at the scene of an accident must conduct a persona
investigation, and upon reasonable grounds to believe a misdemeanor traffic
offense (or infraction) has occurred, issue a traffic citation.[29ASR2d03]
[2] This court has
interpreted this statute as authorizing an investigating officer to view the
accident scene and follow any driver involved therein who is receiving medical
treatment and, if reasonable grounds exist, to issue that driver a traffic
citation.
In the present case only the sequence of
the arrest is at odds with the statute.
Officer Fuifatu viewed the accident scene
after, not before issuing the traffic citation.
In a case not involving personal injury caused by a traffic accident,
this sequence would likely prove fatal to the validity of the arrest. And, only a valid arrest for D.U.I. invokes
the implied consent to chemical testing under A.S.C.A. § 22.0601 et seq.
[3] Yet A.S.C.A. §
22.0803 does not apply to felonies.
Under A.S.C.A. § 22.0708 the injury to any person resulting from
the operation of a motor vehicle by a person under the influence of
intoxicating liquor creates a felony offense.
Officers may upon reasonable grounds, arrest persons found near the
scene of a felony within a short time after its commission. See A.S.C.A. § 46.0805 (3).
Under all of the circumstances,
Defendant’s arrest for driving under the influence was valid. The breathalizer
results are therefore admissible as evidence lawfully obtained.
As a logical consequence of this
decision, the court is compelled, however, to dismiss, without prejudice,
UTC#131687. The validity of the arrest
being predicated upon a felony having been committed, A.S.C.A. § 22.0803 does
not authorize a uniform traffic citation to serve as a valid summons,
complaint, and affidavit for initiating or sustaining a criminal action. See A.S.C.A. § §
22.0801,22.0803, and 22.0810(d).
Nothing prevents the government from refiling a summons, complaint and affidavit in this matter,
but uniform traffic citation #131687, issued in violation of A.S.C.A. §
22.0803, cannot sustain the present action.
So ordered.
********