Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Fuqua

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

March 10, 2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
BOBBY JAY FUQUA

         Session August 9, 2016

         Appeal from the Circuit Court for Robertson County No. 74CC-2015-CR-445 William R. Goodman, III, Judge

         Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant, Bobby Jay Fuqua, pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), fourth offense. He properly reserved a certified question of law regarding whether the police officer had reasonable suspicion to seize the Defendant. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the evidence supports the trial court's finding that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to seize Defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

          Shannon L. Crutcher, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Bobby Jay Fuqua.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Leslie E. Price, Senior Counsel; John W. Carney, District Attorney General; and Jason White, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Robert H. Montgomery, Jr., and J. Ross Dyer, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          THOMAS T. WOODALL, PRESIDING JUDGE

         Defendant was indicted for DUI, fourth offense, driving with a blood or breath alcohol content of .08 percent or greater, driving on a suspended or revoked license, second offense, violation of the open container law, violation of the implied consent law, and indecent exposure. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, asserting that the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause necessary to justify the seizure. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Defendant's motion.

         Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), Defendant entered a plea of guilty to fourth offense DUI and reserved as a dispositive question of law for appeal the issue of the lawfulness of the seizure. The negotiated plea agreement provided for a sentence of one year in jail, suspended after serving 150 days, and a concession that Defendant was a habitual motor vehicle offender. The remaining counts were dismissed. An agreed order was entered by the trial court reserving the following certified question of law:

Did Officer Lloyd possess reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts at the time he activated his vehicle's blue lights and seized the Defendant within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution that the Defendant had committed, or was about to commit, a criminal offense?

Suppression Hearing

         Corporal Michael Lloyd of the Springfield Police Department testified that on February 12, 2015, at 10:05 p.m., he was on routine patrol and driving westbound on Central Avenue, a three-lane road with businesses primarily located along the street. Corporal Lloyd drove by a car wash where he saw a vehicle parked by the vacuum cleaner stalls in a well-lit parking lot and a man standing beside the driver's door. Corporal Lloyd said the man appeared to be urinating in the parking lot. Corporal Lloyd said the man "had his hands at his waist, … looking down, consistent with what all of us would view as a person that's probably urinating in public." Corporal Lloyd demonstrated for the trial court the position in which he saw the man. The record reflected that Corporal Lloyd had his hands by his groin area and his shoulders bent over.

         Corporal Lloyd made a "U-turn" at an intersection and proceeded back to the area to verify his observations. He stated that as he was driving back to the area, he saw a large mass of fluid beginning to drain toward Central Avenue from where the man had been standing. Corporal Lloyd said that the fluid could not have come from the wash bay but that he believed the fluid was from the man urinating in public. Corporal Lloyd drove his patrol car into the parking lot ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.