State v. Loisel
812 So.2d 822, 2002 WL 362858 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Objective evidence, such as a videotape, that directly contradicts an arresting officer's subjective observations of a suspect's physical impairment may render the officer's account legally insufficient to prove guilt for driving while intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- Deputy Buras observed Robert G. Loisel's car stopped in the middle of an intersection and initiated a traffic stop.
- Upon making contact, Buras smelled alcohol on Loisel's breath, even though Loisel had just lit a cigarette and put a mint in his mouth.
- Loisel admitted that he had been drinking "very little" at a bar earlier that evening and was on his way to pick up his son from soccer practice.
- Loisel performed an alphabet recitation test with minor errors but refused to perform the finger-to-nose and walk-and-turn field sobriety tests.
- A videotape of the stop recorded Loisel standing and pacing in front of the police car for almost twenty minutes without losing his balance or leaning on the vehicle for support.
- At the police station, Loisel refused to submit to an Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert G. Loisel was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI).
- The case was submitted to the trial court for a bench trial based solely on the arresting officer's police report and a videotape of the stop.
- The trial court found Loisel guilty of DWI.
- The trial court sentenced Loisel to a sixty-day suspended sentence and placed him on active probation.
- Loisel (Relator) filed an application for a supervisory writ with the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, seeking review of his conviction and sentence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for driving while intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt when an officer's report indicating impairment is contradicted by a videotape showing the defendant was physically steady and coherent, despite the defendant's admission to drinking and refusal of sobriety tests?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge William H. Byrnes, III
No, the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. While a conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) can be based solely on an officer's observations and a suspect's refusal to take a breath test is admissible as evidence of intoxication, the evidence must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under the standard set in Jackson v. Virginia. In this case, the objective evidence from the videotape directly contradicted the deputy's subjective observations in his report. The report claimed Loisel's balance was "unsure" and his speech was "slurred," but the videotape showed Loisel standing and walking without any difficulty for an extended period and that his speech, while not always close to the microphone, was understandable. The court found this case analogous to State v. St. Amant, where a videotape refuting an officer's testimony about unsteadiness rendered the officer's testimony alone insufficient. Because the videotape discredited the officer's key observations of physical impairment, the remaining evidence—an odor of alcohol, a minor error on one test, refusal of other tests, and an admission to a "little" drinking—was legally insufficient to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This case establishes the significant weight that objective video evidence carries in DWI proceedings, particularly when it contradicts an officer's subjective report. The ruling demonstrates that a court can find such objective evidence dispositive, effectively neutralizing the officer's testimony regarding physical impairment. This precedent strengthens the position of defendants in cases where dashboard or body camera footage exists and supports their claim of sobriety. It forces prosecutors to rely on more than just a police report and a refusal to test if countervailing video evidence is present, raising the evidentiary bar in such situations.
