Opinion ID: 2201861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Virginia License

Text: The State interprets the Virginia record as establishing that Benbow did not have a valid operator's license in that state at the time of his arrest. Certainly, it sets out that as of 2 March 1989 Benbow's driver license status was not licensed  eligible. It also shows that on 7 October 1987 there was a suspension for a term ending either 14 or 15 April 1988 for failure to pay a fine. But then it indicates that Benbow had not paid the fine until 8 February 1989, at which time contl ended by compliance with an order which had been mailed to him. Benbow averred that his license had been reinstated on 14 April 1988 when the term of suspension expired. He stated that an officer who arrived on the scene of his arrest knew this because that officer advised him how to pay the outstanding fine and get back his license, and that he had paid it before his arrest. That officer did not testify on the matter.
As we have stated, the trial judge did not resolve the question of the status of Benbow's license at the time of the arrest. The judge declared that the issue was not whether Benbow's operator's license was suspended. That really, the judge asserted, is not the crucial element. It was the judge's view that [t]he crucial fact is whether or not the trooper had probable cause to arrest. The trooper may be wrong ultimately but the question is, was there probable cause to arrest. The judge observed the circumstances facing the trooper were that he has got a guy going 93 in a 55, guy who says I do not have my license. He calls and Virginia says this guy is suspended, is it probable, reasonable for that Trooper to ... think that the man is breaking the law in Maryland? I think he has probable cause to believe that the man is breaking the law, whether or not [the] man is or is not[,] so, therefore, the arrest is legal. The judge denied the motion to suppress. As we construe the judge's ruling, he did not question that the trooper was told that Benbow had a valid Maryland license. Despite that, however, the judge believed that, because the trooper had been informed that Benbow's license to drive in Virginia had been suspended, even though that information may have been incorrect, the arrest was legal as based on probable cause. Thus, the judge reasoned, the search and seizure incident to the arrest was reasonable, and the contraband and evidence recovered was admissible. The judge was wrong. Lacking a factual finding by the trial judge as to the status of Benbow's privilege to operate a motor vehicle under the authority of Virginia, we assume, for the purpose of decision, a scenario which is most against Benbow's interests, namely, that the information received by the trooper was correct  his Virginia license was not in good standing.