Chief Justice John Roberts Speaks Out Against Supreme Court's Decision not to Hear Drunk Driving Case Involving Joseph A. Moses Harris, Jr.

Drunk driving is a serious crime and it is unfathomable why the Supreme Court decided not 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. Chief Justice John Roberts spoke out today against a lower court ruling that he said would "grant drunk drivers one free swerve" that could potentially end someone's life. Richmond, Va., police were called on the morning of December 31, 2005, about Harris, but the police officer said Harris was driving slowly through an intersection where he didn't have to stop and put his brake lights on well in advance of a red light. He then pulled over to the side of the ride where the police officer smelled alcohol on his breath. He failed the field sobriety tests, but the police officer did not see him break any traffic laws. He was arrested and charged with a DUI, 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.

The majority of the Supreme Court justices did not disclose why they decided not to 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. Roberts wrote, "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." He rightly noted that close to 13,000 people die yearly in alcohol related car crashes, which is equivalent to one death every 40 minutes.

He further stated that 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."  Some courts, including a few in Wyoming, Massachusetts and Connecticut, have agreed with Virginia, by saying that police must see a traffic violation before pulling over a suspected drunk driver based on an anonymous tip.

What should have happened in your view? Should the Supreme Court have stepped in and made that rule clear or leave it up to the individual states? Roberts said that "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."  "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." I must add that the Fourth Amendment bans the use of anonymous tips on drunk drivers without police verification, but I share Roberts' sentiments that "the dangerous consequences of such a rule are unavoidable." Sorry, but the police should have every legal tool at their disposal to get drunk drivers off the streets. There are far too many people losing their lives on the streets at the hands of drunk drivers.

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