75 So. 3d 597
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Reynolds was convicted of DUI, first offense, after a de novo trial in circuit court and sentenced to a $1,000 fine, costs, MASEP classes, and 48 hours in jail (suspended).
- Reynolds filed motions, which the circuit court denied; he appealed raising two issues related to the stop and probable cause.
- Officer Blair observed Reynolds’s Corvette behind him at a red light, noted suspicious behavior, and followed due to proximity to an elementary school at 4:30 a.m.
- Blair’s stop was based on Reynolds’s apparent suspicious conduct, including slowing near Blair, driving toward a school, and the passenger drinking from a cup; no traffic violations were observed.
- Reynolds could not complete a breath sample; the Intoxilyzer produced a DUI refusal, leading to charges and trial.
- The court held the stop lacked reasonable suspicion and reversed and rendered the DUI conviction; DUI-refusal issue was deemed moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blair had reasonable suspicion to stop Reynolds | Reynolds argues no reasonable suspicion existed. | Reynolds contends the stop was justified by suspicious behavior. | Stop invalid; no reasonable suspicion. |
| Whether evidence from the stop was admissible and Reynolds’ DUI conviction proper | Evidence should be suppressed as fruit of unlawful stop. | Evidence admissible under proper Terry stop with probable cause after initial stop. | DUI conviction reversed and rendered; moot as to DUI refusal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop)
- McCray v. State, 486 So.2d 1247 (Miss. 1986) (specific and articulable facts justify intrusion)
- Gonzales v. State, 963 So.2d 1138 (Miss. 2007) (two-prong Terry inquiry; first prong requires articulable facts)
- Qualls v. State, 947 So.2d 365 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (mere hunches insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
- Dies v. State, 926 So.2d 910 (Miss. 2006) (mixed standard of review for Fourth Amendment issues)
- Eaddy v. State, 63 So.3d 1209 (Miss. 2011) (distinguishes investigatory stops vs. seizures; probable cause required if stop exceeds scope)
- Spurlock v. State, 67 So.3d 811 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (investigative stop’s constitutional requirements are less stringent than for arrest)
- Adams v. City of Booneville, 910 So.2d 720 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (late hour and careless-driving factors can support stop; probable cause may follow)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (stop reasonable where probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred)
- Byrd v. F-S Prestress, Inc., 464 So.2d 63 (Miss. 1985) (negligence and driving behavior can support reasonableness of actions)