According to Virginia State Police, an officer from Roanoke is facing charges of driving under the influence after he wrecked his police cruiser in Pulaski County on the night of Saturday, February 23.
Shortly after 10:00 p.m. Saturday night was when the wreck took place. Sgt. Mike Conroy, a spokesman for Virginia state police, says that approximately six minutes before the crash happened, they received a 911 call concerning an erratically driven vehicle.
According to Conroy, Officer Andrew Page hit a guard rail after running off the road. The wreck caused his marked Roanoke police car, a 2005 Ford Crown Victoria, to be totaled. Conroy said that Page, in plain clothes at the time, gave investigators his full cooperation. According to court documents, he took a breathalyzer test and was shown to have a blood alcohol content of 0.16, double the legal limit of 0.08.
Page suffered minor injuries in the wreck and required no medical attention, according to Conroy.
Aisha Johnson, a Roanoke police spokeswoman, said that Page received a suspension for the crash and that the department had begun an internal investigation.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Two Residents Of Roanoke County Charged With DUI After Fatal I-81 Crash
After a chain-reaction crash at a road construction work zone that caused the death of an employee of a paving company, two Roanoke County residents have been accused of driving under the influence.
Early on the morning of Wednesday, February 20, 46-year-old Richard Sloan was killed as he was working with S.R. Draper Paving Company in the Cave Spring area.
Roanoke County police say that 42-year-old Tracie Nininger was being held without bond after being charged with involuntary manslaughter and driving under the influence. A second driver, 32-year-old Jeffrey Dupree, was released on bond after he was also charged with DUI.
Early on the morning of Wednesday, February 20, 46-year-old Richard Sloan was killed as he was working with S.R. Draper Paving Company in the Cave Spring area.
Roanoke County police say that 42-year-old Tracie Nininger was being held without bond after being charged with involuntary manslaughter and driving under the influence. A second driver, 32-year-old Jeffrey Dupree, was released on bond after he was also charged with DUI.
Within Same Weekend, Virginia Man Receives Two DUIs
An Abingdon man who crashed into a state trooper in Smyth County on Friday, February 1 and received charges of drunken driving as a result was placed under arrest a second time two days later, on Sunday, February 3, and charged with intoxication in public and possession of drugs, the Virginia state police said.
A police officer from Chilhowie pulled a vehicle in which Barry Dean Marshall II was a passenger over shortly after 2:00 a.m. Mike Conroy, a spokesman for the Virginia State Police, says that the officer stopped the car because he had earlier received a notification from the Sheriff's Office of Smyth County of an erratically driven vehicle. According to what the arrest warrant said, the vehicle was spotted heading north on Interstate 81 by the officer.
The driver, 21-year-old Traci Peake, was arrested by Chilhowie police and charged with driving under the influence.
Deputies from Smyth County assisting with the stop arrested 32-year-old Marshall during the incident and charged him with public intoxication and possession of drugs with intent to manufacture or sell, according to the arrest warrant.
Conroy said that recently before this arrest, Marshall received DUI charges after striking trooper K.S. Chapman with his vehicle only a few miles down the road from where the second incident took place.
The driver, 21-year-old Traci Peake, was arrested by Chilhowie police and charged with driving under the influence.
Deputies from Smyth County assisting with the stop arrested 32-year-old Marshall during the incident and charged him with public intoxication and possession of drugs with intent to manufacture or sell, according to the arrest warrant.
Conroy said that recently before this arrest, Marshall received DUI charges after striking trooper K.S. Chapman with his vehicle only a few miles down the road from where the second incident took place.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Washington State Crashes Roadblocks
Roadblocks have hit the skids in the Washington state legislature.
Lawmakers in Olympia, Wash. rebuked Gov. Christine Gregoire’s push to follow the lead of 41 other states’ measure to allow roadblocks in stemming drunk driving. Rep. Steve Kirby, D-Tacoma voted on behalf of his constituents, who thought such a measure was invasive and illegal. “To me, this is a step away from letting the police stop us on the streets and search our pockets and our backpacks,” Kirby said.
Instead, Washington State will rely on its state constitution, which is more concerned with protecting the privacy rights of its citizens than catching potential drunk drivers.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
That is from the Fourth Amendment, what keeps the police from entering your house for no apparent reason. The police can in fact enter your house and conduct a search but they first need a court order signed by a judge.
You would assume the Fourth Amendment would apply to people’s cars and you would be right. The police cannot legally search a car for no reason in a parking lot, unless they have “probable cause.” If police notice a car with a marijuana leaf painted on the hood, and the license plate reads “DRUGDEALR,” and there is funny-smelling smoke coming out of the windows, that is probable cause. But if the car is a minivan with nothing strange about its appearance, the police can’t search it because they feel like it.
Supreme Court Has Its Own Interpretation
The United States Supreme Court in Michigan v. Sitz found while sobriety checkpoints were apparent violations of the Fourth Amendment, they were only ”minor” violations. Permitting police to stop citizens without reason to believe they had done anything wrong, Chief Justice Rehnquist said, was permissible in view of the government’s ongoing “War on Drunk Driving.”
The dissenting opinions, led by Justice Brennan, stated that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." So aside from not really working, they also violate our fourth amendment rights.
As stated by Justice Brennan: "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving ... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.”
As constitutionally correct as Justice Brennan was, he was still in the dissenting opinion, so on a federal level, sobriety checkpoints are okay. But there are still states that view sobriety checkpoints as unconstitutional. Unfortunately, Virginia isn’t one of them.
Lawmakers in Olympia, Wash. rebuked Gov. Christine Gregoire’s push to follow the lead of 41 other states’ measure to allow roadblocks in stemming drunk driving. Rep. Steve Kirby, D-Tacoma voted on behalf of his constituents, who thought such a measure was invasive and illegal. “To me, this is a step away from letting the police stop us on the streets and search our pockets and our backpacks,” Kirby said.
Instead, Washington State will rely on its state constitution, which is more concerned with protecting the privacy rights of its citizens than catching potential drunk drivers.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
That is from the Fourth Amendment, what keeps the police from entering your house for no apparent reason. The police can in fact enter your house and conduct a search but they first need a court order signed by a judge.
You would assume the Fourth Amendment would apply to people’s cars and you would be right. The police cannot legally search a car for no reason in a parking lot, unless they have “probable cause.” If police notice a car with a marijuana leaf painted on the hood, and the license plate reads “DRUGDEALR,” and there is funny-smelling smoke coming out of the windows, that is probable cause. But if the car is a minivan with nothing strange about its appearance, the police can’t search it because they feel like it.
Supreme Court Has Its Own Interpretation
The United States Supreme Court in Michigan v. Sitz found while sobriety checkpoints were apparent violations of the Fourth Amendment, they were only ”minor” violations. Permitting police to stop citizens without reason to believe they had done anything wrong, Chief Justice Rehnquist said, was permissible in view of the government’s ongoing “War on Drunk Driving.”
The dissenting opinions, led by Justice Brennan, stated that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." So aside from not really working, they also violate our fourth amendment rights.
As stated by Justice Brennan: "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving ... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.”
As constitutionally correct as Justice Brennan was, he was still in the dissenting opinion, so on a federal level, sobriety checkpoints are okay. But there are still states that view sobriety checkpoints as unconstitutional. Unfortunately, Virginia isn’t one of them.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Va. House Passes Ignition Interlock Law
Vehicle ignition interlock devices for those convicted of DUI offenses in Virginia moved halfway to reality after the House of Delegates passed the measure by an 80-28 margin this week.
But that is only part of the predicament for DUI offenders.
Since the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) contracts only with Draeger Safety Inc. to supply the device, violators could be waiting forever to get their vehicles back from the shop. But if the General Assembly forced ASAP to open the bid process, interlock installation costs likely would decrease.
Free Enterprise Seems Missing from Ignition Interlock Sales in Virginia
Draeger is the world's-largest manufacturer of breath alcohol analyzers, including the ingnition interlock device. Numerous manufacturers offer similar products and want to conduct business in Virginia. But for now, ASAP is honoring its exclusive contract with Draeger.
The ignition interlock is a breath alcohol analysis device that prevents an "alcohol-impaired" individual from starting the vehicle ignition, according to Draeger's web site. Furthermore, re-tests are randomly required during operation of the vehicle. The Interlock system records comprehensive information on the operation of a vehicle equipped with such a device. The data is provided to authorities which verify motorist compliance with the law/Interlock program.
House Bill 1442 -- sponsored by Del. Sal Iaquinto (R-Va. Beach) -- now goes to the Senate. Twenty-eight delegates cast "nay" votes, including 14 from Northern Virginia.
If the bill becomes law, it would require the ignition interlock following a first DUI conviction and raise the administrative fee from $20 to $75. The cost of the device would be paid from the criminal fund for indigent offenders. Violators also would be prohibited from driving a school bus, school vehicle or any vehicle transporting 15 or more passengers.
But that is only part of the predicament for DUI offenders.
Since the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) contracts only with Draeger Safety Inc. to supply the device, violators could be waiting forever to get their vehicles back from the shop. But if the General Assembly forced ASAP to open the bid process, interlock installation costs likely would decrease.
Free Enterprise Seems Missing from Ignition Interlock Sales in Virginia
Draeger is the world's-largest manufacturer of breath alcohol analyzers, including the ingnition interlock device. Numerous manufacturers offer similar products and want to conduct business in Virginia. But for now, ASAP is honoring its exclusive contract with Draeger.
The ignition interlock is a breath alcohol analysis device that prevents an "alcohol-impaired" individual from starting the vehicle ignition, according to Draeger's web site. Furthermore, re-tests are randomly required during operation of the vehicle. The Interlock system records comprehensive information on the operation of a vehicle equipped with such a device. The data is provided to authorities which verify motorist compliance with the law/Interlock program.
House Bill 1442 -- sponsored by Del. Sal Iaquinto (R-Va. Beach) -- now goes to the Senate. Twenty-eight delegates cast "nay" votes, including 14 from Northern Virginia.
If the bill becomes law, it would require the ignition interlock following a first DUI conviction and raise the administrative fee from $20 to $75. The cost of the device would be paid from the criminal fund for indigent offenders. Violators also would be prohibited from driving a school bus, school vehicle or any vehicle transporting 15 or more passengers.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Free Consumer Guide "How to Choose a DUI Lawyer in Virginia"
Richmond Virginia DUI Lawyer Bob Battle has written a free Consumer Guide to help those charged with DUI/DWI in Virginia to make the critical decision of who they will hire to represent them at trial. To learn more, watch the video below. To instantly receive your free copy, go to www.VirginiaDUIlawInfo.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
