AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted for driving while intoxicated and received a conditional discharge for the offense of attempt to commit child abuse. These convictions were entered pursuant to a conditional plea agreement. The appeal concerns the denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the police encounter.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress because the seizure was not supported by reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, and the officer's concern for safety was not substantiated by evidence showing the Defendant posed a danger.
• Appellee: Contended that the officer's action of opening the Defendant's car door was justified by a concern for officer safety, based on the Defendant reaching for something in the console, despite not arguing that there was a reasonable suspicion of the Defendant committing a crime.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress on the grounds that the seizure of the Defendant was not supported by reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.
• Whether the officer's concern for safety justified the seizure in the absence of evidence that the Defendant posed a verifiable threat.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded to permit the Defendant to withdraw his plea.

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, with JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, and JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge concurring, found the State's arguments in opposition to the proposed summary disposition unpersuasive. The Court held that the seizure of the Defendant was not supported by reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, and the officer's stated rationale for officer safety was unsupported by evidence that the Defendant posed a danger to anyone (paras 1-5). The Court distinguished this case from State v. Williams, noting that in the present case, there was no argument of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and the evidence presented did not establish a reasonable concern for officer safety. The Court relied on State v. Murry and State v. Gutierrez to conclude that the mere act of moving around in a vehicle without other evidence of a threat does not provide reasonable grounds for an officer to open a person's car door based on a concern for officer safety (paras 2-4).