POLICE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEDURES

      As held by the U.S. Supreme Court, the initial contact with law enforcement and any constitutional law claims are analzed under the U.S. Const. Amend. IV search and seizure and  its "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.  Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 U.S. 386, 392-399. Any  

Under U.S. Const.Amend. IV, which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Any challenges to the constitutionality of the law enforcement search and seizure during the initial stop of a vehicle and detainment of the driver on suspicion of DUI will invovle suppression of evidence that may have been obtained in violation of this constitutional amendment. The differences in state statutes on what constitutes a violation of law; the differing facts; and the presumptively objective but sometimes subjective question of what is reasonable will factor into any decision to make a suppression motion.  ultimately, it will rest on the facts.

        The first questions is whether the arresting officer or officers personally observed the driver's conduct in the vehicle.  The majority of drunk driving stops are initiated because the police officer claimed a traffic violation occurred in the officer's presence. The United States Supreme Court explained the standard for a vehicle stop in a case where a patrolman stopped an automobile for the sole purpose of performing a license and registration check. Delaware v. Prouse (1979) 440 U.S. 648. 663, "[w]e hold that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment"  Thus, this "reasonably articulable suspicion" standard equires law enforcement officers to have some evidence more than a hunch of a violation of law, and proscirbes arbitrary and capricious vehicle vehicle stops.  

      The types of stops that have been approved of for law enforcement officers have varied results.  Where the law enforcement officer observes the driver weaving within a lane.

      Cases where the law enforcement officer observes the driver weaving across lane.

      Cases where the law enforcement officer observes a driver driving too slow.

      Cases where the law enforcement officer observes equipment violations.

      Cases where the law enforcement officer observes squealing tires or exhibition of speed.

      Cases where the detention made on an anonymous informant