Projo Cars Blog

Imagine this: You notice someone breaking into a house and call the police. But when the police arrive, the thief is in the house and the police can do nothing because they did not see the break in.

This preposterous analogy serves to illustrate a decision by the Virginia Supreme Court that "an anonymous tip about an allegedly drunken driver was not sufficient reason for law enforcement officers to stop the person," according to The Washington Post.
And the U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review the decision.

This despite the fact that the case in question involved a Richmond, Va., police officer pulling over Joseph Harris Jr. based on an anonymous tip and reporting that Harris "reeked of alcohol, stumbled getting out of the car and failed a sobriety test.'

Harris was convicted of driving while intoxicated but his conviction was overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court because "the officer had not independently verified that Harris was driving dangerously."

The officer had thus violated Harris's "constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure."

The U.S. Supreme Court decision was not unanimous. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that he did not think the Fourth Amendment required such independent verification in cases of drunken driving because of 'the imminence of the danger posed by drunk drivers exceeds that at issue in other types of cases."

And I agree.

- Peter C.T. Elsworth

 Tags  drunk driving U.S. Supreme Court Virginia Supreme Court

---