N.C. Supreme Court to hear case about whether Durham man's DWI arrest was valid | News
News
INDY Week's news blog

Archives | RSS

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

N.C. Supreme Court to hear case about whether Durham man's DWI arrest was valid

Posted by on Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:56 PM

One judge issued a verbal order from the bench. But another judge signed the written order. Is the order valid?

That’s the question that will be posed before the N.C. Supreme Court tomorrow in a DWI case stemming from Durham. Among the other questions: how many field tests does a driver have to pass in order to prove he’s sober?

In early 2011, Durham Police Officer Howard Henry saw two vehicles on I-40 that appeared to be racing. Howard pulled one of the cars over. The driver was Randy Bartlett. His wife was riding shotgun. There was a strong odor of alcohol inside the car.

Officer Henry asked Bartlett if he’d been drinking. Bartlett said he’d had two beers. Henry performed various field tests on Bartlett. Some he passed; others he didn't. Bartlett could “turn and walk” sufficiently, for example, and could balance on one leg. However, two preliminary breath tests indicated that Bartlett had some alcohol in his system. Moreover, four out of six clues during an eye-gaze test suggested impairment, and two out of eight clues on a walking test suggested the same. (Asked to walk heel-toe along an imaginary line, for example, Bartlett stepped off the line once.)

Bartlett was arrested for driving while impaired. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer lacked probable cause to make an arrest.

On Dec. 18, 2012, the case went before Judge Abe Jones. During the hearing, a sobriety-testing expert testified that he would not have been comfortable making an arrest based on the evidence.

Jones granted Bartlett’s motion to suppress. "I may be wrong, but I think the guy substantially passed the test," said Judge Jones. The judge then instructed Bartlett’s lawyer to draw up a draft of an order. Thirteen days later, on Dec. 31, Jones stepped down from the bench.

The parties next appeared on Feb. 18, 2013, before Judge Orlando Hudson Jr. Hudson agreed to sign the order that had been prepared for Jones “on his behalf,” Hudson said. 

The N.C. Attorney General’s Office took the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing that Hudson lacked authority to sign an order made by Jones. The Court of Appeals rejected the state's argument, concluding that Jones "effectively entered" his order from the bench. The court ruled that Jones provided his rationale verbally before the parties, and there were no material conflicts in the evidence — and therefore, the findings of fact were “implied” by Jones during the original hearing.

But the state successfully lobbied the Supreme Court to take up the case. The state now argues that there was a conflict in the evidence, namely that Jones failed to establish the sobriety expert’s credibility, and that the expert’s testimony differed from that of Officer Henry. 

Jones' rumination when he said, "I think the guy substantially passed the test," shows he was merely thinking out loud, the state argues. 
Pin It

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

INDY Week publishes all kinds of comments, but we don't publish everything.

  • Comments that are not contributing to the conversation will be removed.
  • Comments that include ad hominem attacks will also be removed.
  • Please do not copy and paste the full text of a press release.

Permitted HTML:
  • To create paragraphs in your comment, type <p> at the start of a paragraph and </p> at the end of each paragraph.
  • To create bold text, type <b>bolded text</b> (please note the closing tag, </b>).
  • To create italicized text, type <i>italicized text</i> (please note the closing tag, </i>).
  • Proper web addresses will automatically become links.

Latest in News



Twitter Activity

Comments

Look Lisa, your grandfather's story is tough. I would suggest however that he is a victim of capitalist oppression, not …

by CPF (CommiePinkoFag) on “Durham’s a Bright Light for Our Movement”: After Their Cases Were Continued Until November, Defend Durham Activists Took a Victory Lap (News)

Apparently we must hope that the N&O doesn't follow through on this trend by deciding that they will cover legislative …

by khoragos on The N&O’s Performing Arts Correspondent Says the Paper Is Cutting Back on Performing Arts Reviews (News)

Most Recent Comments

Look Lisa, your grandfather's story is tough. I would suggest however that he is a victim of capitalist oppression, not …

by CPF (CommiePinkoFag) on “Durham’s a Bright Light for Our Movement”: After Their Cases Were Continued Until November, Defend Durham Activists Took a Victory Lap (News)

Apparently we must hope that the N&O doesn't follow through on this trend by deciding that they will cover legislative …

by khoragos on The N&O’s Performing Arts Correspondent Says the Paper Is Cutting Back on Performing Arts Reviews (News)

Cancelling the parade affects all people. I usually went just for the parade, not the night events. Parents take their …

by Aiden on Carolina Jews for Justice Says NC Pride Schedule Fix Isn't Enough (News)

I should also add that it was professor Daniel Sherman who penned the letter that we all signed after some …

by elin o'Hara slavick on UNC Faculty Members Call for the Removal of Silent Sam (News)

The anthropology department had posted a similarly strong letter previous to ours. The progressive faculty network also signed a similar …

by elin o'Hara slavick on UNC Faculty Members Call for the Removal of Silent Sam (News)

© 2017 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation