Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding Adam T. Petsch’s convictions for aggravated driving under the influence and displaying unlawful or fictitious license plates. The court held that probable cause supported Petsch’s arrest based on his flight from the officer and, separately, his apparent impairment and strong odor of alcohol. The court also affirmed the denial of Petsch’s motion to suppress.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether probable cause existed to arrest Petsch when he was handcuffed after fleeing from the officer's attempted traffic stop.
- Whether probable cause existed to arrest Petsch for driving under the influence.
- Whether the county court properly denied Petsch's motion to suppress.
- Whether Petsch's DUI conviction was supported after the suppression challenge was rejected.
Holdings
- Probable cause supported Petsch's arrest because the known circumstances gave a reasonable officer grounds to believe that Petsch had operated a motor vehicle to flee in an effort to avoid arrest or citation, regardless of the officer's subjective belief that the handcuffing was for officer safety.
- Probable cause existed to arrest Petsch for DUI based on the totality of the circumstances, including his slow responses, apparent confusion, stumbling, and the strong odor of alcohol emanating from him.
- The county court properly denied the motion to suppress, and the district court properly affirmed Petsch's convictions.
Key quotations
“A tier-one police-citizen encounter involves the voluntary cooperation of the citizen elicited through noncoercive questioning and does not involve any restraint of liberty of the citizen. Because tier-one encounters do not rise to the level of a seizure, they are outside the realm of Fourth Amendment protection. A tier-two police-citizen encounter involves a brief, nonintrusive detention during a frisk for weapons or preliminary questioning. A tier-three police-citizen encounter constitutes an arrest, which involves a highly intrusive or lengthy search or detention.” (at 407-08)
“Probable cause to support a warrantless arrest exists only if law enforcement has knowledge at the time of the arrest, based on information that is reasonably trustworthy under the circumstances, which would cause a reasonably cautious person to believe that a suspect has committed or is committing a crime.” (at 408)
“The test to be employed is whether the totality of the circumstances would suggest that probable cause existed.” (at 410)
Factual background
Officer Troy Aksamit observed Petsch driving an SUV with an expired license plate and pursued it after the SUV appeared to accelerate and flee despite the officer's lights and siren. After the SUV stopped, Aksamit briefly drew his firearm, handcuffed Petsch, and placed him in a patrol vehicle. Petsch appeared confused, responded slowly, stumbled while walking, and emitted a strong odor of alcohol; a later breath test registered .286 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
Procedural history
The Lancaster County Court denied Petsch's motion to suppress, and Petsch was convicted following a stipulated bench trial. He appealed to the Lancaster County District Court, which affirmed. The Nebraska Supreme Court moved the case to its docket because it presented facts similar to State v. Botts and then affirmed.