OPINION
Randall H. Leaf appeals from his convictions for Possession of Marijuana, Public Drunk and Assault and Battery on a Police Offiсer (two counts), contending that the trial court should have granted a pretrial motion to suppress.
In considering this contention, we must look to the record at the suppression hearing. The trial on the merits is a separate and distinct proceeding, and the evidence therein does not relate back to bolster up the evidence on the motion to suрpress. Dowell v. State,
The only witness at the suppression hearing was Lt. R.J. Mеlton, a twenty year veteran of the Oklahoma City Police Department. He testified that at about 2:00 a.m. on February 22, 1982, as he drove westbound on a city street, he saw two subjects lying motionless in a grassy area some thirteen to fifteen feet from thе street. He stopped to check on their welfare.
When one of the men raised up, the officer called оut from his cruiser and asked whether the man was alright. The man said he was, and the lieutenant asked him to step over to the cаr. The officer asked the man his name and what the problem was. The man identified himself, and said that he and his companion were just resting. Since the companion still remained motionless, Lt. Melton asked the man to tell the companion to step over to the cruiser.
The man said something to his companion, and the latter raised up on one elbow and asked the officer what he wanted. The officer asked the man, later identified as appellant, if he was alright. Appellant said that he was, and that it was none of the officer’s “f_ business.” The lieutenant, who was still seated in the patrol car, asked aрpellant to come to the vehicle, which appellant did. The officer again asked appellant if he was alright, and the latter repeated, in a profane manner, that it was none of his business.
The appellant had trouble rising uр from the ground, and had to put a hand down to steady himself. He then had difficulty walking to the patrol car, his body swaying as he did so. Apрellant was belligerent, incoherent and loud, and it was apparent to the officer that he was under the influence.
The officer asked appellant’s name, and was rebuffed as before. Anticipating difficulty, Lt. Melton radioed for assistanсe. At
Upon a sudden movement by appellant to his pocket, the оfficers attempted a pat-down search of appellant’s clothing. During the course of this search, appellant turned and began swinging and kicking at the officers. Lt. Melton suffered lacerations on his legs, and the back-up officer was trеated at a hospital for a bruised sternum. After appellant was subdued, he was advised that he was under arrest for public drunk and assault on an officer. As he was placed in a patrol car, an officer removed a baggie of marijuanа from appellant’s pocket. Appellant was then advised that he was also under arrest for possession of the drug.
The first task is to decide at what point the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures became relevant in the encounter, i.e., whether and when appellant was “seized” and subjected to “seаrch.” Terry v. Ohio,
We assume that appellant was “seized” when the officer personally asked him to approach the car. Appellant had strongly expressed his resentment of the offiсer’s inquiries, yet the officer persisted in his request. Appellant’s compliance may well have been submission to the officer’s authority, rather than voluntary cooperation on his part.
The question then becomes whether it was reasonable at that point for the officer to have acted as he did. Terry v. Ohio, supra,
An important aspect of а policeman’s work is the assistance of those in need of help, the so-called “public service function.” See People v. Engle,
His conversation with the first man did not allay his concern for appellant, who remained motionless on the ground. His insistence that appellant approach the cаr, despite appellant’s assurance that he was alright, was not unreasonable. The officer might well have felt compelled to satisfy himself as to appellant’s well being, in light of the circumstances of the early morning encounter.
When the officer observed conduct reasonably leading him to believe that appellant was intoxicated, he had grounds for an arrest. 37 O.S.1981, § 8(A);
Accordingly, we find no error in the denial of the motion to suppress, and the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.