Virginia DUI Case Causes Stir in U.S. Supreme Court

As reported by the L.A. Times, The U.S. Supreme Court allowed to let a Virginia Supreme Court ruling stand that calls into question the legality of DUI stops based only on a phoned in tip from an eyewitness.

The case arose when police received a tip of a possibly drunk driver behind the wheel of an Altima. The caller gave police a partial license plate number and description. Based on the tip, not any other factors, Joseph Harris of Richmond was pulled over and arrested for DUI.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled the stop was an unreasonable search because the officer did not witness any signs that Harris had been drinking. In other words, they ruled that the phoned in tip did not constitute probable cause.

In a 7 to 2 vote this week, the United States Supreme Court denied the to give cert, which in a sense, backed the Virginia Court’s decision and agreed that a phoned in tip is not sufficient for a DUI stop.

As this report from The New American details, U.S. Justice John Roberts was outraged with the ruling and said it essentially gives drivers “one free swerve” before they can be questioned by police.

Roberts was one of the 2 votes to wanted to take on the case and make a ruling that would apply to all states. Currently, Virginia is among only 4 states that don't allow vehicle stops based on anonymous reports.

If the Court were to hear, and eventually overturn the lower court’s ruling, it would have opened the door for many other searches based solely on a witness’s tip. The Court cited a similar case in which it was ruled a citizen could not be frisked only based on an anonymous call as precedence.

There are many rules, laws, and court rulings that govern how a search and arrest can occur. When the police fail to follow these rules and procedures set up through prior court rulings and state law, they run the risk of violating a citizen’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, as detailed in the 4th Amendment.

When you are facing criminal charges, you want a defense attorney to look closely at the steps the police followed during the arrest and investigation stages of your case. There are many instances where criminal charges are dropped because the police didn’t follow proper protocol.

If you are up against criminal charges in the Virginia courts and want to ensure every rock is unturned in the defense of your case, contact me today. I am interested in the details of your case and I am interested in working with you.

More on Driving I-81 Dangers

As we noted before, I-81, especially near Page and Shenandoah counties is a dangerous road. This has been recognized by the Virginia Department of Transportation, and today's comments about a reckless driving charge for a truck driver who fell asleep add some extra food for thought.

Due to budget cuts, rest areas have been closed, and it is illegal to pull over on the side of the road to sleep. This may have been a significant factor in the accident after the driver fell asleep at the wheel.

Fortunately, there was no one was harmed in this incident. But when you take roads that VDOT and the Virginia State police know to be dangerous, and make them more dangerous due to short term budget constraints, you are toying with public safely in a disturbing way.

Mistake in Allowing Reckless Charge Dismissed For Commerical License

A judge in Richmond is under fire for allowing a reckless driving charge for a commercial bus driver to be dismissed after completing a driving school program. That bus driver is facing new charges for reckless driving after hitting and killing a pedestrian with her bus.

Under the law, if a person has a commercial driver's license in Virginia, they are ineligible for a reckless driving offense dismissal after attended driving school, under a law passed in July 2008. The original reckless driving incident occurred in May of this year.

Though the defendant clearly checked off that she had a commercial driver's license, the judge still allowed her to take a Second Chance Driving Improvement Clinic. After satisfying the terms of the driving class, on Sept 10th, the reckless driving charge was dismissed on Sept 30th.

The defense attorney quoted indicated that is it not uncommon for judges to miss laws that have been recently passed, especially when the facts of those laws come up infrequently.

If the reckless driving offense had stood, and she had not been allowed the opportunity for the dismissal, she likely would have lost her job as a driver for the GRTC Transit System. However, she also violated company policy by not notifying her supervisor of the reckless driving charge.

It is certainly possible that she would have been fired from her job if she had followed that procedure, and if the judge had refused to allow for the dismissal, she would have lost her driver's license and not been driving.

Whenever there is a tragedy like this, people are always looking for someone to blame. It is impossible to say what would have happened in either of those cases, but it is clear that multiple administrative failures led to a circumstances where someone was killed.