DUI Based On Jilted Girlfriend’s 911 Call

Time and time again our Chicago DUI Lawyers have pointed out the complete unfairness in how the laws are applied to those arrested for drunk driving. Here’s another fine example from Utah.

Utah Supreme Court Allows DUI Stop On Vague 911 Call

Police can pull over a car that has committed no traffic violation based solely on vague accusations made in a 911 call, the Utah Supreme Court ruled Friday. The court considered the case of Jose Baltarcar Roybal whose live-in girlfriend, Annalee McCaine, called 911 after the pair had a fight August 8, 2005.

“The person that’s been living with me is an [expletive], and I want him the [expletive] out of here,” McCaine told the emergency operator. “He’s out putting stuff in his van… He’s going to be gone before you get here.”

McCaine said the pair had been drinking and that Roybal was about to drive off to the south. She provided a description of Roybal and his van. Ogden Police Sergeant Chat Ledford received the dispatch and spotted the van which he believed was driving “really, really slow” on 30th Street. Although Roybal had violated no traffic laws, Ledford believed the slow driving was a sure sign of intoxication and initiated a traffic stop.

“Driving slow is a sure sign of intoxication”? What scientific study is that based on?

The court considered at this point whether the officer’s actions were justified, as the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial Court sided with the officer and the appellate Court reversed. The matter then went to the state Supreme Court, who sided with the officer.

The majority concluded that the McCaine’s drunken call to 911 offered sufficient evidence that Roybal was also intoxicated and therefore could be stopped unless the officer saw evidence to the contrary.

“Once a reasonable suspicion is reached by the originator of the information — in this case, the dispatcher — the responding police officer is entitled to rely on the information unless the officer’s personal observations or interaction with the suspect present indications to the contrary,” Wilkins wrote. “That is to say, if the suspect’s actions are not inconsistent with the reasonable suspicion, the police officer may pursue the suspect and stop him or her immediately.”

So despite the fact that this was a clear attempt to get back at an ex-boyfriend and that the boyfriend hadn’t violated any laws, the cop was justified in stopping Roybal for drunk driving – because his jilted lover said to stop him. Just what the Founding Fathers had in mind when drafting the 4th Amendment, I’m sure.