Modbert
Daydream Believer
- Sep 2, 2008
- 33,178
- 3,055
- 48
Decision on DUI frustrates officials | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA
Thoughts on the change USMB?
WILKES-BARRE It seemed like a clear cut case of drunken driving when a city police officer came across a Hanover Township man asleep at the wheel of his car with the engine running.
The suspect, Victor Verdekal, had a strong odor of alcohol and staggered out of the vehicle when awakened, nearly falling several times, according to an arrest affidavit. A blood-alcohol test later revealed he had a level of 0.197 percent, nearly 2 � times the legal limit of 0.08 percent.
But when the case went to court in April 2009, Senior Luzerne County Judge Patrick Toole ruled the District Attorneys Office could not present any of the evidence police had gathered.
The reason?
The vehicle was parked at the time Verdekal, 27, of West St. Marys Road, was discovered, and police could not prove that he had actually operated the car in an intoxicated state.
Its a legal distinction thats been utilized to overturn DUI convictions in a number of cases statewide, frustrating prosecutors and police.
He was right. A three-member panel of the court voted 2-1 this week to affirm Tooles decision. Barring a potential appeal to the state Supreme Court, the ruling means prosecutors will have to drop the charges against Verdekal for lack of evidence.
If an intoxicated person starts his vehicle that is not, in and of itself, enough for an officer to have probable cause to believe a driver is under the influence, Webby said. They (the courts) dont want to put a chilling effect on people who know they cant drive and are using a car to sleep.
Thoughts on the change USMB?