Source: https://virginiaverdictreview.wordpress.com/category/traffic/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:09:49+00:00

Document:
Given the most recent decision of the Virginia Supreme Court with respect to passive “operation” of a vehicle and the application ofVa. Code § 18.2-266, I wonder how many more citizens of the Commonwealth have to die before the General Assembly and the Supreme Court stop providing unintended incentives for drunk drivers to stay on the road.
In January of last year, in Nelson v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 212 (2011), the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of a man who, after being found asleep behind the wheel of his car with the radio running, was charged with DUI. In support of this conviction, the Court reasoned that, by placing the car in the “on” or ‘accessory” position so as to activate the radio but not the ignition, the defendant was, in effect, operating the vehicle and was therefore in violation of Code 182.-266. Alarmed by the implications of this ruling, I have been anxiously anticipating some form of retort or rebuttal from the legal community for the last year. On March 2nd, that response finally arrived. Unfortunately, it was not exactly the response I was looking for. Instead of objecting to or overturning last year’s ruling, the Supreme Court of Virginia further solidified their opinion by affirming the DUI conviction of a man found sleeping behind the wheel. Enriquez v. Commonwealth, 2012Va. Lexis 49,March 2, 2012. In doing so, I believe the Supreme Court has inadvertently signed the death warrant of untold drivers and passengers onVirginia highways.
In Enriquez, the Defendant was originally investigated by the police after a parking meter attendant tried to ticket his car for being illegally parked in a bus zone and discovered him asleep inside. Unable to rouse the man by knocking on the window, the attendant called the police and the situation progressed from there. Ultimately, he was charged with (and later convicted of) DUI because he had the keys in the ignition so he could listen to the radio while his engine was off and car in park.
While some may not question the Defendant’s eventual conviction, my issues lies with the logic applied by the Supreme Court in reaching its decision. Following previous cases, the Supreme Court engaged in an analysis that focussed on whether a key was in a particular position in the ignition. Va. Code § 18.2-266 prohibits a person under the influence from driving or operating a motor vehicle on the highways. In Enriquez, the Supreme Court spends considerable effort stretching the definition of “operate” to now include merely having the keys in the ignition, even if the engine is off and the car is in park. In its efforts in expanding the logical definition of “operate”, the Supreme Court has created a perverse incentive for drivers that will result in more deaths on theVirginia highways.
Because the Supreme Court’s reasoning criminalizes the simple act of turning on the heat on a cold night, or of listening to the radio, while being drunk in a car, this opinion creates an incentive for drunk drivers, or those who feel the beginnings of impairment, to stay on the road. There is no benefit to these drivers in stopping and resting and ensuring they are going to be safe. As such a driver faces a criminal penalty if he stops and is caught, he has an incentive to keep going and to try to reach the safety of home. Frankly, that is the last thing I want: implicit encouragement to drunk drivers to stay on the road. Based on the Court’s extension of previous cases, I fully expect it to find that the mere possession of car keys, when one has a push button ignition in his car, to be construed as “operating” the vehicle. Again, more incentive not to stop, more incentive to stay on the road, more likelihood of killing someone.
I understand that drunk driving is a hot political button. Every officer in the state makes a DUI inquiry during every traffic stop. However, in non-alcohol related cases, the General Assembly has already provided an incentive for tired drivers to get off the road. Under Virginia Code 46.2-830.1, the act of parking one’s car on the shoulder in order to rest is encouraged by removing any serious penalty for drivers who do so because they are feeling drowsy or tired. Conviction for sleeping on the side of the road is a no demerit point offense. The General Assembly has recognized that it wants tired drivers to get off the road. It shouldn’t matter if he is tired because he has been up for twenty-four hours or because he has had too much to drink. That driver needs to be off the road. Instead, if the driver who has too much to drink does what society wants and pulls over to sleep, he faces a greater chance of being discovered and punished as a criminal, especially if one were to pull over in winter and need heat to stay alive while he sleeps. Faced with that outcome, many a drunk driver will take the chance of getting home. And, more people will be in accidents and more people will die. It is the law of unintended consequences.
Now that the Supreme Court has spoken in Enriquez, our only hope is that the General Assembly overturns the Supreme Court’s decision through legislation. I am not holding my breath.
Since the inception of the nation-wide “Click it or Ticket” program, law enforcement officers across the Commonwealth has been regularly conducting seat belt checkpoints to target drivers who do not buckle up. In the last few months, I have received a few requests for further information/clarification as to what, exactly, the police are legally allowed to do, and what they are not, when it comes to roadblock stops.
The primary case dealing with the issue of checkpoints is Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz. Here, in 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court evaluated the constitutionality of a Michigan highway sobriety checkpoint program. In this instance, the checkpoint involved brief stops of motorists so that police officers could detect signs of intoxication and remove impaired drivers from the road. The police had no reason to suspect any of the drivers of any wrong doing prior to stopping them. Nonetheless, motorists who exhibited signs of intoxication were diverted for a license and registration check and, if warranted, further sobriety tests. The Supreme Court found that this checkpoint program was clearly aimed at reducing the immediate hazard posed by the presence of drunk drivers on the highways, and there was an obvious connection between the imperative of highway safety and the law enforcement practice at issue. The gravity of the drunk driving problem and the magnitude of the State’s interest in getting drunk drivers off the road weighed heavily in their determination that the program was constitutional. However, to protect drivers’ rights under the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court underscored that to be legal, a roadblock had to be carried out in accordance with a pre-published plan where officers acted without exercising individual discretion.
In the 1979 case of Delaware v.Prouse, the Supreme Court further clarified the difference between a legal checkpoint-like stop and the illegal, warrant-less detention of a motorist. In this case, the Court held as invalid a discretionary, suspicion-less stop in which an officer stopped a vehicle simply to perform a check of the motorist’s driver’s license and registration. The officer’s conduct in that case was deemed unconstitutional primarily on account of his exercise of “standardless and unconstrained discretion.” However, the Court nonetheless acknowledged the States’ “vital interest in ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate motor vehicles, that these vehicles are fit for safe operation, and hence that licensing, registration, and vehicle inspection requirements are being observed.” Accordingly, the Court suggested that “questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops” would be a lawful means of serving this interest in highway safety.
Most importantly, the Supreme Court further indicated in Prouse that it considered the purposes of such a hypothetical roadblock to be distinct from a general purpose of investigating crime. This case itself reveals a difference in the Fourth Amendment significance of highway safety interests and the general interest in crime control.
Moreover, and very specifically, the Supreme Court stated that the narcotics-interdiction purpose of the checkpoints in this case could not be rationalized in terms of a highway safety concern similar to the one present in Sitz.
The end result of this analysis is that local law enforcement agencies across the country are attempting to, and are, conducting widespread abuses of the Fourth Amendment by conducting road blocks, ostensibly for Prouse purposes of public safety, but then adding a general crime component to those stops. For example, while stopping they may have a drug dog sniff all cars. This additional action, in my view, is clearly illegal. There is no need to use a dog to meet the requirements of a registration check. Moreover, even if a dog sniffs and finds an odor of narcotics, there is not sufficient evidence of individualized suspicion to warrant a stop. For example, the officer cannot articulate a suspicion that the driver is in possession of narcotics, only that at some time narcotics were used in the car.
Unfortunately, bad lawyering sometimes paints the wrong picture when it comes to stops of this nature. In Wright v. State, from the Court of Appeals of VA, a panel found that since a proper stop was made at a registration checkpoint, a subsequent search related after a drug dog alerted during the time of the stop was valid. The lawyer never argued that component of Prouse that is essential: the sniff does not give individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. So, given this dichotomy, there will be battles in the future.
Personally I have had success defending a citation issued after a checkpoint stop because the official plan for the checkpoint authorized it to take place on road A at the intersection of Road B. However, the actual checkpoint was conducted on Road B and the intersection of Road A. As a result, I argued that all of the citations/violations issued as a result of the checkpoint were not enforceable since the spot was not in conformance with the established procedure.
Individual success stories aside, the real problem with checkpoints is that the people of Virginia do not protest them enough. Thousands of tickets are issued at checkpoints each year and each represents an individual case. Therefore, to drum up enough public unrest so as to actually challenge the validity of the checkpoint system requires that the majority of these citations are challenged in court. Unfortunately, the financial burden of defending oneself and a general fear of going in to court prevents most people from doing so. Passively encouraged by this lack of opposition, checkpoints continue to be used throughout the Commonwealth, in my opinion, for general crime enforcement while disguised as a registration check. The wolves are truly in sheep’s clothing in this sense.
Should you find yourself a victim of this particular law enforcement tactic, at least now you know that there are attorneys out there who can, and will, aggressively challenge checkpoint-driven violations. The attorneys at Westlake Legal are always available for consultation in this matter.
If you are a Virginia resident who regularly commutes to D.C. or Maryland, this post is for you. According to a recent Washington Post report, the State of Maryland has raised the stakes when it comes to texting while driving. In accordance new legislation, the act of reading or sending a text message while driving now constitutes a primary offense, thereby giving police officers the ability to pull over anyone caught texting at the wheel.
Though texting while driving is currently a secondary offense in the Commonwealth, it is important for Virginia drivers to realize that other states do not take the same stance on the issue. In fact, 31 states and D.C. now consider the act of texting behind the wheel a primary offense worthy of a traffic stop and a hefty fine. Given this discrepancy, it is important for VA drivers to keep their phones in their pockets if they want to keep their cash in their wallets after crossing state lines.
The most charged crimes in Virginia are reckless driving and DUI. Although no one should drive if they are under the influence, certain organizations and local governments have made a concerted effort to arrest and charge people for merely having had one or two drinks and then driving. Unfortunately, most people do not know that it is possible to successfully defend against the charge of DUI. To do so, one needs to understand the basic physiology of alcohol consumption and the weaknesses of the techonology often used by prosecutors to prove being under the influence.
In 2009, the Commonwealth switched from using the Intoxilyzer 5000 to using the EC/IR II for breath testing. Many in the defense community cynically argue that this was done to aid in convictions as the EC/IR II does not reflect differences in types of alcohol (ethyl- v. methyl-) as well as its predecessor. Breath test machines also don’t differentiate between genders, account for individual body types, or assess actual body temperature. Most importantly, breath test machines assume that individuals have the same breath to blood ratio, or lung capacity.
Because everyone is different, the failure of machines to account for differences in temperature, the amount of body fat or water in a person, and lung capacity means that all DUI convictions based on the numerical results of a breath test machine are based on inaccurate test results.
At Westlake Legal Group, we have been able to demonstrate to juries that breath test machines are inaccurate. In fact, we have shown that machine results as high as .30 were inaccurate and our clients have been properly found not guilty. Every case is, of course, different and results cannot be guaranteed. However, if you, a friend, or family member, are faced with such a charge, know that we have the experience to defend you.
Of course, the real issue of discussion is whether DUI laws are too extreme. Is it possible to properly regulate alcohol and driving without having the pendulum swing to the extreme? Thoughts?
If you wish to learn more about our approach to criminal defense, feel free to contact Westlake Legal for more information.
In what should be seen as a major victory for Virginia motorists, the Federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the suppression of drugs found in the defendant’s car during what should have been a routine traffic stop. In this particular case, the defendant was originally pulled over by trooper Christopher Conner for allegedly tailgating another motorist on I-95. However, rather than simply issuing a ticket for the tailgating offense, the Trooper proceeded to question the man for more than 10 minutes as to whether or not he had any illegal substances in his car, called for backup, and then began questioning the driver once again as to the subject of drugs. Eventually, after being subjected to a barrage of questions, the defendant consented to a vehicle search. It was this search that lead to the discovery of the drugs for the possession of which the defendant was charged.
Ultimately, the defendant’s counsel filed a motion to prevent the submission of these drugs into evidence on the grounds that the officer’s harassment lead to an involuntary search. The 4th Circuit upheld this motion after concluding that the officer’s actions went beyond the parameters of a permissible search and seizure as stated in the Fourth Amendment and further outlined in Terry v. Ohio.
As was decided in Terry v. Ohio states, a search and seizure such as this is only permissible when “the officer’s action was justified at [the inception of the traffic stop]” and “the officer’s subsequent actions were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the stop.” In other words, the officer must act in accordance with the standard procedure associated with the purpose of the stop. Without some evidence to justify a “reasonable suspicion of criminal activity,” the officer can not simply abandon the traffic infraction purpose of the stop to investigate another possible crime. Since it was determined that this was, in fact, what took place during the stop in question, the Court ruled that the officer’s actions qualified as a violation of the driver’s Fourth Amendment rights.
This case is of tremendous relevance to Virginia drivers because the Court’s decision further protects citizens’ Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Additionally, this decision serves to send a firm reminder to police officers in the Commonwealth that “a traffic stop must be reasonable both in its scope and duration.” To pull an individual over for the purpose of conducting an investigative probe into whether or not they are in violation of some other law is both unjust and illegal.
For more information on this case, please feel free to read the Court’s decision in full here.
NOTE: The purpose of this posting is to discuss the implications of Virginia statute on drivers confronted with a roadside breath test or a roadside sobriety field test. Different considerations come in to play if you have already been arrested and are asked to take breath test at the police station. Hopefully, by acting responsibly and remaining knowledgeable as to your rights, you will never find yourself in such either situation.
Whether it be something they learned in Driver’s Ed or something they just heard from friends, it seems that most Virginia drivers are under the impression that if a cop asks you to take a breath test or to perform a sobriety field test, you have to comply… or else be arrested on the spot. While this assumption is simply not true, many people are never properly informed of their rights until they are sitting in my office, preparing to fight the DUI they have already been charged with. So, for the sake of getting it right before it is too late, let’s take a minute to examine Virginia’s “Implied Consent” law and the implications it has on drivers statewide.
In other words, not only can you refuse a roadside breath test, but this refusal is not, by itself, grounds on which you can be arrested and your refusal can not be used against you should you end up in court. A good way to think of it is like this: the police need probable cause to place anyone under arrest. While a roadside breath test is not admissible in court, it does provide sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. So, when a cop asks you to agree to a roadside breath test, they are really just looking for a way to easily establish probable cause. The logic behind your right to refuse such a test is similar to logic that justifies pleading the 5th–you can never be forced to incriminate yourself or to implicate yourself in any crime.
So what does this mean to the average Virginian? At the very least, having this information presented to you should reinforce the importance of becoming knowledgeable as to your rights and learning how they apply to everyday situations. More importantly, you should know how to exercise those rights. Hopefully, you will never put yourself in a situation where you will have to put this knowledge to use, but at the very least you can help put an end to the wide-spread rumors surrounding Virginia’s Implied Consent law.

References: § 18
 v. 
 v. 
 § 18
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.