John Roberts Laments Drunk Driving Ruling

Chief Justice Says Lower Court Ruling Will Give Inebriated Drives "One Free Swerve"; High Court Declines to Hear Appeal

(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.

[Ms_enza]

"Ummm you do know that driving isn't a right, right?" by louiville2_5 October 20, 2009 7:27 PM EDT

Nothing to do about driving; it's about unreasonable search and seizure.

So what if it was an anonymous tip about a pot-growing in someone's attic?

Should the cop's be allowed bust down your door?

What if they do and your dogs are barking so loudly you do not hear the shout "Police" and you kill the first guy coming through?

What then if you find out the tipster gave them the WRONG address?

Virginia is full of such cases -- started in 1971 with the Kit Hurst case...

[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?

[incog-nito]

The ruling is correct. Too easy for some pranksters to report on innocent people or those they don't like. And if the police can stop anyone just because someone made a call without seeing the evidence themselves, why stop at drunk driving? Might as well toss out the part in the Constitution about probable cause and unreasonable search and seizure. After all, people used to report on each other in Stalin's USSR. Why can't we?

[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.

[tmittelstaed]

This is a tempest in a teapot. An officer has hundreds of excuses they can use to pull someone over. All they have to do is pull them over and tell them that they think one of their tires has an unsafe amount of air pressure, or that they saw one of the rear taillights blinking when they put on the brake. Since the driver pulled over on the side of the road the cop could have simply pulled in behind him, and just sat there until he drove off again. If the driver is drunk the driver certainly isn't going to get out of his car and walk back and ask the officer what he's doing, and if the driver pulls over and sits for more than 5-10 minutes the officer can walk up and ask if he needs medical assistance, if he's having heart pains or something.

The mistake the officer made was pulling the guy over and telling him that he did so based on an anonymous tip that he was drunk. There's nothing in the lower court ruling that precludes an officer merely following behind a suspected drunk driver for an indefinite amount of time.

[credibility2]

Drinking and then driving is just plain stupid. Drunkards that drive should swerve and plow into a concrete embankment and die. Who needs them anyway? There is no excuse for this type of behavior, except stupid ignorant selfishness.

[stuart-johns2]

I tend to agree with that.

[Ms_enza]

An anonymous tip is NOT probable cause. PERIOD!

Republicans are always the first to give up their rights. "Well, I don't break the law so I have nothing to fear."

Toadies.

[thesevenveils]

If you would have read the article you would have read his opinion. He's made an opinion on a case that was resolved in lower courts. In essence he stating that because he does not agree with the lower courts ruling he will over rule justice.

How many ethic laws are being touched here?

[Biggest_Rick]

Republicans are always the first to give up their rights? Are you kidding me? Right now we have an open assault on free speech by the left with their political correctness and lableling any disagreement with the policies of the president as racist. It was also all of the more liberal justices who said imminent domain could include making one private owner of a property sell to another private owner if the second owner would improve the property and pay more in taxes, thus ending a strong right of property owners. Furthermore it was the more liberal justices who upheld Campaign Finance Laws that have also affected free speech.

[jumkey]

Yes, Biggest_Rick, Republicans *always* fall all over themselves to take away other people's rights.

Republicans are authoritarians and don't give a damn about civil liberties, unless it's *their* liberties.

[Ms_enza]

"Ummm you do know that driving isn't a right, right?" by louiville2_5 October 20, 2009 7:27 PM EDT

Nothing to do about driving; it's about unreasonable search and seizure.

So what if it was an anonymous tip about a pot-growing in someone's attic?

Should the cop's be allowed bust down your door?

What if they do and your dogs are barking so loudly you do not hear the shout "Police" and you kill the first guy coming through?

What then if you find out the tipster gave them the WRONG address?

Virginia is full of such cases -- started in 1971 with the Kit Hurst case...

[SusanStoHelit]

I sure don't see the problem - phoning in a drunk is a good thing. Waiting for the police to see them swerve across traffic - the drunk gets to keep driving drunk.

The officer saw plenty - abnormal driving patterns that confirmed the tip. He should be able to pull the driver over on the basis of that, for a simple DUI check.

[stuart-johns2]

Well Susan. Appreciate the sentiment but it seems the Virginia Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the U.S. does'nt agree with you though.

[democracy1]

What abnormal driving patterns, Susan? SlowIng down at an intersection and being prepared for a red light? If that's your idea of abnormal, I hope you aren't driving in my state.

[stuart-johns2]

I cannot understand why the police officer was near Harris when he smelled alchohol on his breath.

" 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 had'nt done anything suspicious or violated any laws.

"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."

So for what reason did the police officer have for approaching Harris? An anonymous tip???

"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."

I agree with the Virginia Supreme Court. The lower courts should have known better. The State's Attorney's Office who prosecuted should have known better.

See this is where I have to side with the Libertarians and Republicans. American's rights ARE being challenged more and more. Our basic freedoms ARE being attacked. I can understand the frustration of the Constitutionalists who truly want to defend the Constitution.

But those extremists who are totally and irresponsibly paranoid that this is happening because of some grand scheme our government is conspiring against us, trying to enslave us, well...they are simply lunatics. Go to www.oathkeepers.org and read about a very dangerous and cleverly manipulating militia group.

I warn you however, read carefully and think about what they present. Their motive is clear. They hate Obama, they hate our government. These are some very dangerous people who are recruiting veterans, police officers and military personnel. They are even penetrating the militarys enlisted ranks and brainwashing some to believe that they do not have to obey Obama. They tell them the Constitution is your ultimate Cammander in Chief.

Go read it. Let me know what you think. There is some truth to what they say, but they mix a little truth with a whole lot of manipulation.

[jwesel1]

Supreme court saved the black drivers from the white police.

[retiredgustav]

So if I don't like my neighbor, I just make an anonymous phone call and have them arrested. Sounds like a police state to me!

[SusanStoHelit]

Nope. You can make an anonymous phone call while driving nearby them, and have the police check if they are drunk. Only if they are DUI, would they be arrested.

[dnamj]

Hey! I'm pretty sure I saw Roberts driving drunk, and that I'll see him doing it again tomorrow and the day after that. The police should not have the power to pull people over just on anonymous tips.

[mike18881]

No probile cause? I don't think so. I don't like you so I call the cops for no reason just to harass you. that's ok? what ever happened to illegle search. They need a reason to stop you.