Monthly Archives: September 2019
The holiday season is fast approaching and before you know it, law enforcement will be ramping up its efforts to catch drunk drivers. Their efforts will inevitably include saturation patrols and DUI checkpoints, but they might also include, as they’ve done in the past, an ad campaign encouraging motorists on the road to contact law enforcement if they suspect that another driver is under the influence.
If an anonymous caller tips off police that someone might be driving drunk, the officer has no personal knowledge of facts that would lead them to believe that someone is driving drunk. The officer is only going off of what the tip had said. The tip could be accurate, it could be a lie, or it could just be mistakenly inaccurate. An officer must have probable cause to stop a driver on suspicion of a DUI, and probable cause means that the officer has reasonable and trustworthy facts that the driver is drunk.
The question becomes: Can an anonymous tip give an officer the required probable cause to stop a driver on suspicion of driving under the influence?
The United States Supreme Court in 2014 concluded in the case of Navarette v. California that an officer can use an anonymous tip as the basis for a DUI stop.
In Navarette v California, a motorist was pulled over by California Highway Patrol after an anonymous tip. The anonymous tipster told the dispatcher that they had been run off of Highway 1 near Fort Bragg by someone driving a pickup truck and provided the pickup’s license plate number. As the CHP officer approached the pickup, they smelled marijuana and discovered four bags of it inside the bed of the truck.
Officers identified the occupants of the truck as brothers Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette.
At trial, the brothers filed a motion to suppress evidence claiming that the officers lacked the reasonable suspicion needed to stop them, thus violating the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The judge, however, denied the motion. The brothers then pleaded guilty to transporting marijuana and were sentenced to 90 days in jail, but appealed.
At the appellate level, the court ruled against the brothers saying, “The report that the [Navarettes’] vehicle had run someone off the road sufficiently demonstrated an ongoing danger to other motorists to justify the stop without direct corroboration of the vehicle’s illegal activity.”
The brothers appealed again, this time to the United States Supreme Court. Once again, the court concluded that an anonymous tip alone can give law enforcement the justification to pull someone over on suspicion of driving under the influence.
In quoting the previous case of Alabama v. White, the Supreme Court said, “[U]nder appropriate circumstances, an anonymous tip can demonstrate ‘sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make [an] investigatory stop.’”
In finding that the anonymous tip was reliably, the court relied on the fact that the caller claimed eyewitness knowledge of dangerous driving, the fact that the tip was made contemporaneously with the eyewitness knowledge of the dangerous driving, and the fact that the caller used 911 to make the tip (knowing that the call could be traced).
According to the Court, if the tip bears “sufficient indicia of reliability,” officers need not observe driving which would give rise to suspicion that a person was driving under the influence or even that the driver committed a traffic violation. They only need the unverified and unsupported anonymous tip.
Does anyone else see the problem here?
Justice Scalia did and he voiced his concern in his dissent to the majority opinion in Navarette v. California.
“Drunken driving is a serious matter, but so is the loss of our freedom to come and go as we please without police interference. To prevent and detect murder we do not allow searches without probable cause or targeted Terry stops without reasonable suspicion. We should not do so for drunken driving either. After today’s opinion all of us on the road…are at risk of having our freedom of movement curtailed on suspicion of drunkenness, based upon a phone tip, true or false, of a single instance of careless driving.”
Anonymous tipsters are not necessarily reporting on drunk drivers (they don’t know if who they’re reporting on is even drunk). Rather, they are reporting driving errors, any of which can be interpreted as drunk driving. Everybody makes mistakes while driving. In fact, it might be fair to say that no driving trip is perfect and that all driving trips, no matter how short or simple, contain some mistakes. This necessarily means that everyone on the road is a target of anonymous tipsters and anyone can be stopped on suspicion of DUI simply because someone else reported their mere driving mistake (even if they are not drunk).
Imagine the following scenario: A person drives to a bar only expecting to have a couple of drinks, certainly not enough to keep them from being able to drive home. Lo and behold, the person has more than expected and, instead of driving home, they decide to sober up by sleeping it off in the car. While the person is asleep in their vehicle, a police officer walks by and notices the person in their vehicle.
Can the officer arrest the person for a DUI when they were attempting to sober up in their car, but not actually driving?
As a preliminary matter, the police officer would have to have probable cause (reasonable and trustworthy facts that the person was driving under the influence) before the officer could investigate them for a DUI. Let’s assume for discussion purposes that the officer had probable cause to investigate for a DUI.
Whether the officer could arrest the person for a DUI for merely sobering up in a vehicle depends on the state where the incident occurred.
Some states hold that a person can be arrested, charged, and convicted of a DUI if they are in “dominion and control” of their vehicle with the ability to drive it, even though they may not have actually driven it.
California, on the other hand, requires at least some proof that the person actually drove the vehicle.
In the 1991 California Supreme Court case of Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles, the court held that the word “drive” in California’s DUI law means a person must volitionally and voluntarily move the vehicle. The court has held that even a “slight movement” is enough to meet the requirement that the defendant drove the vehicle as long as it was voluntary.
Having said that, just because an officer doesn’t see someone drive, as is the case with many DUI arrests, doesn’t mean that the person can’t be arrested for a DUI or something else.
Just because the officer did not see an intoxicated person drive a vehicle doesn’t mean that they didn’t actually drive the vehicle, and if the officer can obtain circumstantial evidence that a person drove, then that might be enough to support the “driving” requirement for a DUI arrest and conviction.
For example, an intoxicated person is found asleep in their vehicle which is in the middle of the road or an unconscious and intoxicated person in their vehicle after crashing it, can still be arrested for a DUI. The vast majority of these types of cases, the officer does not observe the person drive and then stop in the middle of the road. That, however, is not necessary. The prosecutor only needs to introduce facts that can create the inference that the intoxicated person drove without directly proving that the intoxicated person drove.
In other words, if the prosecutor introduces the fact that the person was found intoxicated in the middle of the road, the prosecutor can argue that the person would not have come to the middle of the road had they not driven there. The same thing can be said for someone who is unconscious at the steering wheel of a vehicle involved in an accident.
What about when there is no circumstantial evidence to suggest that the person drove?
In the 1966 case of People v. Belanger, officers found the intoxicated defendant asleep in his vehicle which was located in a parking lot. Although the facts in that case were not enough to create the inference that the defendant had driven to the location while under the influence, the officers still arrested the defendant for drunk in public.
The Court concluded that, in order to prevent the defendant from waking up and driving away drunk, they needed to arrest him on suspicion of being drunk in public.
Although California requires that a person actually drive a vehicle before they can be convicted of a DUI, no person should be in a vehicle, whether they’re driving it or not, if they are intoxicated. Why risk a California DUI, or some other charge like drunk in public?
A 10-year-old girl is being hailed as a hero by both law enforcement and her mother for recording and calling 911 on, get this, her mother who was driving drunk.
Stephanie Davis, 31, was stopped shortly after 4pm on Saturday in Glendale, Arizona after police received a 911 call from Davis’s daughter that Davis was driving drunk. According to Maricopa County court records, when police arrived, Davis was found stumbling around outside her car, exhibiting slurred speech and bloodshot eyes.
“When she walked, she had to be supported by officers, and when she tried to exit the patrol vehicle, she fell down and had to be caught by officers,” according to court documents.
Police also found Davis’s three children in the car, one of which had recorded Davis’s drunk driving and had called 911. The 10-year-old provided police with the video of the incident and, according to court records, the children could be heard in the background yelling at Davis to pull over so that she wouldn’t crash the vehicle.
Davis later confessed to drinking wine while watching the Lion King with her daughter and 4-year-old nieces. She also later failed field sobriety test and was served a warrant for a blood test.
“This is the most embarrassing thing to happen in my life…the most failed moment of being a mother,” Davis told KTVK of Phoenix.
As Davis prepares to go to court on September 23rd, she has praised her “heroic” daughter for “absolutely [doing] the right thing.”
As a first-time DUI offender in Arizona, Davis faces a minimum of 24 hours in jail (the law provides for 10 days minimum with nine days suspended) up to six months, up to $2,500 in fines and fees, a license suspension between 90 and 360 days, installation of an ignition interlock device, possible probation for three years, possible community service, and possible alcohol assessment coupled with an alcohol education class.
While not exactly the same had Davis’s DUI been in California, she’d be facing similar consequences. In California, Davis would have faced three years of informal probation, up to six months in jail, between $390 and $1,000 in fines (not including “penalties and assessments” which increase the fine by about three to four times), a minimum three-month DUI course, possible jail, possible community service and/or labor, possible installation of an ignition interlock device, possible MADD Victim Impact Panel, possible Hospital and Morgue Program, and a license suspension.
California also treats DUI with children in the car very seriously. Not only would Davis be looking at the punishment under California’s DUI law above, she would also be looking at additional penalties under California Vehicle Code section 23572, also known as California’s DUI child endangerment enhancements.
Under California Vehicle Code section 23572, a first time DUI conviction where a minor under the age of 14 is in the car will bring an additional 48 hours in a county jail. A second time DUI conviction will bring an additional 10 days in jail. A third time will bring an additional 30 days in jail. A fourth will bring an additional 90 days. Furthermore, these penalties are to be served consecutively, not concurrently with the underlying DUI penalties.
The prosecutor need only prove that you were driving under the influence and that there was a minor child under the age of 14 in the car while you drove.
Davis’s words of advice to parents: “Save the wine for at home.”
Many people often ask whether a DUI checkpoint is entrapment. Some ask whether it is entrapment when an officer who parks his or her patrol vehicle outside of a bar or another alcohol-serving establishment and catches a drunk driver.
Unfortunately, the answer is no in both cases, and the misconception lies in the common use of the word “trap” and the mistaken belief that it applies to the legal definition of entrapment.
In the case of People v. West, the court defined entrapment as “the conception and planning of an offense by an officer and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion, or fraud of the officer. Persuasion or allurement must be used to entrap.”
Like many things in law, this rather confusing definition was later refined by the court in People v. Barraza when it said, “[T]he proper test of entrapment in California is the following: was the conduct of the law enforcement agent likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense?”
Simply put, entrapment is a defense when the officer forces someone to do something when that person would not have otherwise done so.
With a DUI, entrapment would occur if the police forced the driver to drink when they would not have done so or force the driver to drive when they would not have done so.
Neither is the case with DUI checkpoints or when an officer parks their patrol vehicle outside of an alcohol-serving establishment.
Although many people consider checkpoints to be “traps,” they do not fit within the legal definition of entrapment. If a drunk driver is stopped at a checkpoint, the officer has neither forced them to drink nor drive. If a drunk driver is stopped and arrested at a checkpoint, it’s because they chose on their own to drink and drive before the encounter with the officer. Similarly, if an officer spots a driver coming out of a bar, follows them out onto the streets, then pulls them over for a DUI, the officer has neither forced them to drink nor drive.
Additionally, in both cases, the officers had the legal right to be at the location where they were. DUI checkpoints time and time again have been held by numerous courts to be constitutional. In fact, in California, one of the requirements a DUI checkpoint must adhere to in order to be constitutional is that drivers must be allowed to lawfully turn away from the checkpoint (Yes, that’s right, drivers cannot be forced to go through a DUI checkpoint). When an officer parks outside of a bar, typically they are in a public space, such as a parking lot, where they have a right to be.
Having said that, just because a person is driving through a checkpoint or observed leaving a bar does not mean that the officer has a right to arrest them on suspicion of a DUI. The officer must have probable cause (the amount of evidence needed for an officer to make an arrest) to believe that a person is driving drunk before an arrest can be made.
At a checkpoint, the officer obtains the evidence (i.e. probable cause) needed to make an arrest by asking passing drivers whether they’ve had anything to drink, observing symptoms of intoxication, and, of course, breathalyzing drivers. Without additional evidence that a person is driving drunk, an officer cannot make an arrest.
Similarly, the mere leaving a bar does not give the officer probable cause that a person is driving drunk, although the officer may suspect the person is driving drunk. If, however, an officer observes a person commit a traffic violation after leaving a bar, they can be pulled over. The traffic violation stop can be used as a pretext to investigate for a DUI.
Can entrapment ever be used as a defense for a DUI? Consider the following.
A person goes to a bar to have a drink. Thinking that they might be over the legal limit of 0.08 percent blood alcohol content, they lawfully sit on a bench outside of the bar. A few minutes later, a police officer approaches the person and demands that they drive out of the parking lot. The person obliges, gets in their car, and drives away. As the person drives away, the officer stops and arrests the driver for driving under the influence.
Because the driver drove as a result of the officer’s demand when they would not have otherwise done so, entrapment may be a defense for the driver.
While this scenario is uncommon, it has happened. However, in the vast majority of California DUI cases, unfortunately the defense of entrapment cannot be used.