John Roberts Laments Drunk Driving Ruling

(AP)  Chief Justice John Roberts spoke out in vain Tuesday against a lower court ruling he says will "grant drunk drivers 'one free swerve"' that could potentially end someone's life.

Roberts wanted the Supreme Court to review the lower court ruling but he failed to persuade enough of his colleagues. The court declined to hear an appeal from Virginia officials who had their drunk driving conviction of Joseph A. Moses Harris, Jr. thrown out by that state's Supreme Court. Police were notified by an anonymous tipster that Harris was driving intoxicated, but the arresting officer did not see Harris break any traffic laws.

The majority of the justices did not say why they did not take the case, but Roberts in a written dissent, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the Virginia court's decision will put people in danger.

"The decision below commands that police officers following a driver reported to be drunk do nothing until they see the driver actually do something unsafe on the road - by which time it may be too late," Roberts wrote.

Roberts noted that close to 13,000 people die in alcohol-related car crashes a year, which equals to one death every 40 minutes.

Roberts said a majority of the courts have said it doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure to pull over drunk drivers based on anonymous tips from programs like the "Drunk Busters Hotline."

But some courts, including some in Wyoming, Massachusetts and Connecticut, have agreed with Virginia in saying that police must see a traffic violation before pulling over a suspected drunk driver based on an anonymous tip.

The Supreme Court should have stepped in and made the rule clear, Roberts said.

"The stakes are high. The effect of the rule below will be to grant drunk drivers 'one free swerve' before they can be legally pulled over by police," Roberts said. "It will be difficult for an officer to explain to the family of a motorist killed by that swerve that the police had a tip that the driver of the other car was drunk, but that they were powerless to pull him over, even for a quick check."

Richmond, Va., police were called on the morning of Dec. 31, 2005, and told that an intoxicated Harris was driving a green Altima down the street. A police officer saw Harris drive slowly through an intersection where he didn't have to stop and put on his brake lights well in advance of a red light.

Harris then pulled over to the side of the road, where the police officer smelled alcohol on his breath. Harris also failed the field sobriety tests, but the police officer did not see him break any traffic laws.

Harris was convicted of driving while intoxicated, but the Virginia Supreme Court threw out his conviction. The court said since the police officer did not see erratic driving behavior like swerving, there was not a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to warrant the stop.

Harris's lawyer said the Supreme Court should let that decision stand because "society's reasonable expectation of privacy requires some facts to support the tipster's allegation that the driver was intoxicated."

If that's correct and the Fourth Amendment bans the use of anonymous tips on drunk drivers without police verification, "the dangerous consequences of this rule are unavoidable," Roberts said. "But the police should have every legitimate tool at their disposal for getting drunk drivers off the road. I would grant certiorari to determine if this is one of them."

The case is Virginia v. Harris, 08-1385.

[winslowe1]

Wow, this is great! We have at least one Supreme Court justice concerned about public safety. There is yet hope.

[bytheway59]

this is a state's issue, not a federal issue. state's issue driving licenses and therefore enforce the privelege. for the CJOTUSSC dive into a state's issue demonstrates his ethics of convenience, he wants to dictate to state's their laws.

He was a poor pick and it shows now.

[Hosheen]

"Officers do nothing until they see the driver actually do something unsafe"

That won't change anything. Police officers have no problem lying to make a case, especially something that will get them an "attaboy" like a DUI arrest. After all, career advancement comes before truth, justice, and the constitution.

[stuart-johns2]

Virginis was right and the Supreme Court was right. In related cases, I have seen men who argued with their wives only, end up in jail for domestic battery simply because the wife slaps themselves in the face, calls the police in a raging fit of anger and claims that the husband hit her.

Troubled teenagers do this regularly when they disagree with their parent(s) discipline. They will literally hit themselves, call the police, have one parent(s) arrested for domestic battery (usually the father - the disciplinarian) and after the father is hauled away (if he is), the teen goes back out on the streets and is no longer grounded.

It's a sick society we live in.

[stuart-johns2]

Virginia

[djseavy]

Of course Roberts and Scalia dissented. It bugs them to no end that we have that pesky thing called the constitution putting constraints on government. I'm surprised Thomas didn't join the dissent. Anytime there's a ruling in favor of somebody's rights, he's against it.

[goobicus]

Tax alcohol the way cigarettes are taxed almost to death in New York state. Use the money to help pay victims of secondhand drinking.

[kbbpll]

Gee, an anonymous tip used to get you waterboarded. What happened to the good old days?

[esq777]

Roberts, like most conservatives, is a total hypocrite. He pretends to support the constitution and individual liberty, but then wants to legislate from the bench to allow traffic stops with no probable cause.

[jumkey]

I don't think he makes any pretense at all of supporting the Constitution.

The police want the ability to stop people at random without cause, and like the true authoritarian he is he wants to give it to them. He would like to use the pretext of public safety to allow the government to control our lives.

This is classic conservative behavior.

[John_Merritt]

Anything we can do to keep drunk drivers off the road should be done. If it was me and I had the ability, I would request that all bars have 'meter readers' equipped in them. If you blow an .08, your night is over and you go home. Period..........

[jumkey]

"Anything"?

OK Mr. Stalin.

[billards53]

Disgusting . A supreme court chief justice who laments a ruling that supports probable cause . Did Mr Roberts ever read the bill of rights or the preamble to the constitution when he was in prep school . Do they teach law at the local country club . I am a former member of the US military and an honorably discharged veteran . We were required to take an oath to defend and protect the constitution of the United States of America ,. Has Mr. Roberts forgotten his oath of office .

[stn_sage]

Good post! I doubt he took the oath of office seriously to begin with!
He's in a position 'above the law', so ob course he supports Draconian police state methods...they won't apply to HIM!

[us_1776]

Kudos. Good posts.

An officer needs probable cause, not some anonymous tipster with an ax to grind, in order to pull someone over.