The Giant Noodle
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,332
- Reaction score
- 2,011
- Location
- Northern Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I am half and half on this one. BUUUUT... because DUI laws are WAY to harsh, I suppose Im glad the guy got off. No reason to destroy someones life and empty their bank account for sleeping in their car drunk. Buuuut also he could have been passed out. Hmmmm......
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 Attorney’s 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. Mary’s Road, was discovered, and police could not prove that he had actually operated the car in an intoxicated state.
It’s a legal distinction that’s been utilized to overturn DUI convictions in a number of cases statewide, frustrating prosecutors and police.
“If a police officer gets a call of someone slumped over a wheel and finds a person passed out drunk in the driver’s seat . . . . but has no information that tells him the car was moved, that officer has no probable cause to arrest that person,” said Luzerne County Assistant District Attorney James McMonagle. “As it stands now, the officer would have to stand by and wait for the car move to arrest the person.”
McMonagle appealed Toole’s ruling to the state Superior Court, but said he knew he faced a difficult challenge in overturning it given that the court has previously ruled in favor of defendants whose cases were similar to Verdekal’s.
He was right. A three-member panel of the court voted 2-1 this week to affirm Toole’s 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.
The key issue in the Verdekal and other cases revolves around a provision within the drunken driving statute that permits police to charge a driver - even if the vehicle is not moving - as long as the officer can show the operator was in “actual physical control” of the vehicle. The problem for police has been in how appellate courts have interpreted what constitutes “actual physical control,” McMonagle said.
In Verdekal’s case, he was discovered asleep at the wheel while his car was legally parked on North Washington Street at around 1:35 a.m. on April 10, 2008. The engine was running, but his headlights were not on, he was not wearing a seatbelt, and his hands were not on the wheel, according to court records.
Verdekal’s attorney, Ferris Webby, said numerous appellate court rulings have said the mere presence of an intoxicated person behind the wheel of a vehicle that is stationary is not sufficient to prove the person drove the vehicle while intoxicated.
Webby said the courts have held that police must look at the “totality of the circumstances” in making that call. There must be some other evidence – such as the car being stopped in the middle of the road, or its tire up on a curb – that would indicate the driver had driven the vehicle while intoxicated prior to the arrival of police at the scene.
Webby said the courts have made that distinction because the justices realize there could be situations where a person who is not yet intoxicated drives to bar, goes inside, becomes intoxicated, then leaves the establishment to “sleep it off” in their car.
That’s what Webby said happened in Verdekal’s case. Verdekal had gone to the car to sleep while waiting for his brother, whom he was out drinking with, to return. He started the engine so that he could get heat in the vehicle, but never moved it.
“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) don’t want to put a chilling effect on people who know they can’t drive and are using a car to sleep.”
But McMonagle said the responsibility of police is to ensure the safety of the public. The law puts police in a difficult position because, without evidence the operator drove the car, the officer can’t arrest the person on suspicion of DUI.
“At best the officer can prevent the person from driving, but does he have the time to stand by the car to make sure they do not drive away?” McMonagle said.
McMonagle said he’s discussing appealing the Verdekal decision to the state Supreme Court, but no decision has yet been made.
If an appeal is filed, it would likely allege the courts have improperly interpreted the DUI statute in Verdekal’s case, as well as others. He noted the statute says the person must be in “control” of the vehicle. It does not say anything about having to prove the defendant “moved” the vehicle.
“They are making the commonwealth prove the defendant drove the car. That’s not what the statute means,” he said.
Cumberland County District Attorney David J. Freed, who sits on the board of the Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association, said he believes McMonagle has valid argument to present to the state’s high court, should he decide to do so.
“The courts have interpreted movement into the statute and it does not say that,” Freed said. “It’s frustrating . . . . These cases are hard enough. When the courts read things into a statute that are not there, it makes it doubly tough for us.”
Decision on DUI frustrates officials | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA
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 Attorney’s 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. Mary’s Road, was discovered, and police could not prove that he had actually operated the car in an intoxicated state.
It’s a legal distinction that’s been utilized to overturn DUI convictions in a number of cases statewide, frustrating prosecutors and police.
“If a police officer gets a call of someone slumped over a wheel and finds a person passed out drunk in the driver’s seat . . . . but has no information that tells him the car was moved, that officer has no probable cause to arrest that person,” said Luzerne County Assistant District Attorney James McMonagle. “As it stands now, the officer would have to stand by and wait for the car move to arrest the person.”
McMonagle appealed Toole’s ruling to the state Superior Court, but said he knew he faced a difficult challenge in overturning it given that the court has previously ruled in favor of defendants whose cases were similar to Verdekal’s.
He was right. A three-member panel of the court voted 2-1 this week to affirm Toole’s 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.
The key issue in the Verdekal and other cases revolves around a provision within the drunken driving statute that permits police to charge a driver - even if the vehicle is not moving - as long as the officer can show the operator was in “actual physical control” of the vehicle. The problem for police has been in how appellate courts have interpreted what constitutes “actual physical control,” McMonagle said.
In Verdekal’s case, he was discovered asleep at the wheel while his car was legally parked on North Washington Street at around 1:35 a.m. on April 10, 2008. The engine was running, but his headlights were not on, he was not wearing a seatbelt, and his hands were not on the wheel, according to court records.
Verdekal’s attorney, Ferris Webby, said numerous appellate court rulings have said the mere presence of an intoxicated person behind the wheel of a vehicle that is stationary is not sufficient to prove the person drove the vehicle while intoxicated.
Webby said the courts have held that police must look at the “totality of the circumstances” in making that call. There must be some other evidence – such as the car being stopped in the middle of the road, or its tire up on a curb – that would indicate the driver had driven the vehicle while intoxicated prior to the arrival of police at the scene.
Webby said the courts have made that distinction because the justices realize there could be situations where a person who is not yet intoxicated drives to bar, goes inside, becomes intoxicated, then leaves the establishment to “sleep it off” in their car.
That’s what Webby said happened in Verdekal’s case. Verdekal had gone to the car to sleep while waiting for his brother, whom he was out drinking with, to return. He started the engine so that he could get heat in the vehicle, but never moved it.
“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) don’t want to put a chilling effect on people who know they can’t drive and are using a car to sleep.”
But McMonagle said the responsibility of police is to ensure the safety of the public. The law puts police in a difficult position because, without evidence the operator drove the car, the officer can’t arrest the person on suspicion of DUI.
“At best the officer can prevent the person from driving, but does he have the time to stand by the car to make sure they do not drive away?” McMonagle said.
McMonagle said he’s discussing appealing the Verdekal decision to the state Supreme Court, but no decision has yet been made.
If an appeal is filed, it would likely allege the courts have improperly interpreted the DUI statute in Verdekal’s case, as well as others. He noted the statute says the person must be in “control” of the vehicle. It does not say anything about having to prove the defendant “moved” the vehicle.
“They are making the commonwealth prove the defendant drove the car. That’s not what the statute means,” he said.
Cumberland County District Attorney David J. Freed, who sits on the board of the Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association, said he believes McMonagle has valid argument to present to the state’s high court, should he decide to do so.
“The courts have interpreted movement into the statute and it does not say that,” Freed said. “It’s frustrating . . . . These cases are hard enough. When the courts read things into a statute that are not there, it makes it doubly tough for us.”
Decision on DUI frustrates officials | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA
Last edited: