Judge to Consider Motion to Suppress

Share:
photo by Lauren King, Court Watch Intern
photo by Lauren King, Court Watch Intern

By Charlotte Krovoza and Tressa Bryant

Did a California Highway Patrol Officer have reasonable suspicion to pull over a motorist driving on a rural county road near Clarksburg? That was the question faced in a  a Yolo County courtroom. Among the cases on Tuesday’s morning docket in Judge Dan Maguire’s courtroom was a motion to suppress evidence in a DUI case.

On, March 30, 2014, at approximately 9:42 pm, Taryn Zimmer was driving in her black sedan along a single-lane road in the southernmost portion of Yolo County, near Clarksburg. Officer Mencias was on patrol that night and saw the car pull out onto the road. When called as a witness by the DA to testify, Mencias stated that he witnessed the black sedan “crossing over onto the double yellow lines and weaving through traffic lanes.” This, based on his professional training, was a sign that the driver might have been intoxicated or distracted. He testified that he observed the vehicle either cross or hug the center yellow lines multiple times. He called this a violation of the vehicle code, which gave him the authority to pull the vehicle over for an investigative stop.

Therefore, in the interest of safety, Officer Mencias proceeded to use his lights to signal the driver to pull over.

The deputy district attorney had the dash cam video from that evening. The DDA showed this to Officer Mencias on the witness stand, as well as to the judge and private defense counsel Gary Gorski. Officer Mencias mentioned that he had first seen the footage that morning.

After reviewing the tape, Mr. Gorski questioned Officer Mencias. The defense pointed out that, upon the second swerve onto the double yellow line, Ms. Zimmer had passed a truck stalled on the side of the road. He pointed out that perhaps the defendant had “hugged” the double yellow line because she was trying to avoid the stalled car on the side of the road. He also pointed out that there were levees on either side of the road.

The officer, after reviewing the video, later acknowledged that he, too, had verged left slightly to go around the parked vehicle. Once Ms. Zimmer passed the stalled car, Officer Mencias turned on his lights to signal to Ms. Zimmer to pull over.

Officer Mencias stated that he pulled Ms. Zimmer over to explain the possibilities of her distracted driving. Upon engaging in conversation with Ms. Zimmer, Officer Mencias noted more signs of possible intoxication.

The DDA would point out that some of the swerves occurred well before the defendant would have seen the stalled vehicle.

However, Mr. Gorski would counter that the officer, who was very familiar with the road, was imposing his own standards on the driver. For instance, Officer Mencias testified that he turned on his lights in an area that would have a wide shoulder for Ms. Zimmer to stop her car. However, while she quickly stopped her car, she went past that shoulder to a more risky location.

Mr. Gorski noted that the officer was quite familiar with that road, but that did not mean his client was, or that she was being evasive or that this was indicative of intoxication.

He also noted that this was a dark road and that, while the officer steadfastly refused to acknowledge it under cross-examination, the road was very narrow. A reasonable driver would probably attempt to hug the line and err on the side of caution by driving toward the center of the road rather than toward the outer edge of the road, where the levee and river were.

At the conclusion of the arguments by both sides, Judge Dan Maguire announced that he plans to review the video further, prior to delivering his decision on whether the stop was reasonable under the circumstances given.

Share:

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

7 thoughts on “Judge to Consider Motion to Suppress”

  1. Chase Tinsley

    David, it’s unclear a bit how it went down and what the charges ultimately were. I’m assuming one of the 23152 subsections and that it stayed a misdemeanor given that the Judge is  Maguire, but did the defense formally file a 1538 motion or did the defense attorney see the tape for the first time as they watched it in the court room? Were there additional charges to whatever type DUI the officer thought he had a right to stop the vehicle for?

    1. Chase Tinsley

      ok I guess I should read closer in the beginning.. it says on the docket was a motion to suppress, just was strange the DA was questioning the officer to lay the foundation during a defense motion in a misdeanor case… would make sense if it was a felony prelim/1538 combo

      1. Davis Progressive

        typically the prosecution has the burden in a suppression motion to establish that it was done legally so they lay foundation, defense crosses, etc.

  2. Davis Progressive

    while i agree with defenses concerns here that the officer was a bit ticky tac on the pull over given road conditions – dark, narrow, windy road with river/ levy exposure.  nevertheless, reasonable suspicion is so low that i don’t see how the judge is going to grant the motion to suppress.

  3. Chase Tinsley

    gotcha…. so basically in a misdeanor, if the defense motions to suppress, it’s almost like a mini prelim now for the defendant except he/she wont have another arraignment? and The time rules and what  not of felonies. and yeah it’s a tough one…. given the officer’s testiomy and some concessions, I would think the defnse would file a pitchess motion as well

  4. PhilColeman

    The defense motion to suppress is based on the contention that the officer failed to meet the probably cause standard for the traffic stop. With video evidence in hand, there no apparent dispute from the defendant that she had crossed the double-yellow line.

    That’s a violation of the Vehicle Code. That alone would be probable cause for the stop.

    But an exception to the double-yellow line restriction is available when the crossing was necessary to prevent an accident. With a  “perhaps” qualifier, the defense argued that the technical violation was excused; ergo, the stop was illegal and all the incriminating evidence that followed towards the DUI charge was inadmissible.

    Probably cause to stop was still present, not even close. It’s surprising (assuming we’ve received a full telling of this story) that neither the DA nor the officer failed to note that it was the defendant who created the hazard in the first place. Had she just waited until she passed the stalled vehicle, she would have had no need to cross the double-yellow line.

    Since this case met some kind of standard for noteworthy publication, please give us all the finding that will follow shortly. I’m quite certain of the motion ruling. Hearing that ruling and the rationale behind it will doubtless the best part of this challenged case.

    Of the hundreds of “motions to suppress” arguments I’ve seen, this bears the dubious distinction of being the worst.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for