Officer Broce then got his K–9 out of the patrol car and walked it around the vehicle where it purportedly altered on the driver's door of vehicle.
#302 broce drive free
Though never referenced in the police incident report, nor any supplemental report submitted by either officer, Officer Broce testified in court that he smelled a faint odor of unburned marijuana coming from the vehicle prior to the K–9 free air search being conducted. When Broce asked for consent to search the vehicle, Rouse refused.Īccording to Officer Stowe, appeared nervous. Broce asked Rouse if he had any illegal drugs in the vehicle and Rouse stated that he did not. Broce then engaged Rouse in conversation by asking Rouse where he was coming from. Officer Broce ordered Rouse to step out of the vehicle and Rouse complied.
#302 broce drive license
The officers stopped Rouse and requested his driver's license and insurance documents.
#302 broce drive trial
The trial found the following facts: Officers Stowe and Broce were parked in the median on I–20 when one of the officers observed Rouse traveling in the right lane following a tractor trailer too closely and changing lanes without signaling. “To properly follow the first principle, we must focus on the facts found by the trial court in its order, as the trial court sits as the trier of fact.” Id. (Citation, punctuation, and footnote omitted.) Miller v. These same principles of law apply equally to trial court rulings that are in favor of the defendant․ On numerous occasions the appellate courts of this state have invoked these three principles to affirm trial court rulings that upheld the validity of seizures. Third, the reviewing court must construe the evidence most favorably to the upholding of the trial court's findings and judgment. Second, the trial court's decision with regard to questions of fact and credibility must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. The trial judge hears the evidence, and his findings based upon conflicting evidence are analogous to the verdict of a jury and should not be disturbed by a reviewing court if there is any evidence to support it. There are three fundamental principles which must be followed when reviewing a motion to suppress.įirst, when a motion to suppress is heard by the trial judge, that judge sits as the trier of facts. Because the trial court employed an incorrect legal standard, we vacate the judgment and remand this case. The State appeals from the trial court's grant of Jemeril Rouse's motion to suppress marijuana found in his vehicle following a traffic stop.