EDSEL DIXON DURANT, JR. v. CITY OF SUFFOLK
Court of Appeals of Virginia

July 21, 1987, Decided

Facts:

On June 7, 1985, at approximately 10:26 p.m., Suffolk Chief of Police observed appellant driving a car and swerving all over the road.  The Police followed him for five or six miles into Isle of Wight County.  He never indicated to appellant that he was a police officer in pursuit of him or that he intended to stop or arrest him.  He called another Officer Bradshaw, and he stopped appellant after locating him approximately two miles into Isle of Wight County. Officer Bradshaw testified that appellant had a strong odor of alcohol about his person, that his speech was confused, and that his balance and walking ability was somewhat vague.  Appellant disclaimed any medical problem and acknowledged that he had consumed one or two beers.  Officer Bradshaw advised appellant of his Miranda rights; he also advised appellant of the terms of the implied consent law which he read from a card. The pertinent part of the advice read as follows: "I am charging you with driving while intoxicated. . . ." In the custody of Officer Bradshaw, appellant was taken from the arrest site in Isle of Wight County to Suffolk police headquarters where a breathalyzer test was administered.  Officer Bradshaw did not observe appellant drive or commit an offense in the City of Suffolk.  At the time of the arrest, Officer Bradshaw knew only what he had been told by Suffolk Chief.  As previously noted, Officer Bradshaw made the arrest in Isle of Wight County at a point two miles from the Suffolk border. From there Officer Bradshaw transported appellant to the Suffolk police headquarters where, on Officer Bradshaw's sworn statement, an arrest warrant was issued charging appellant with driving under the influence of alcohol in the City of Suffolk.  In a bench trial, the breathalyzer test result was admitted over appellant's objection, and appellant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol.  Appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Issue:

• Whether the arrest was unlawful and the resulting breathalyzer test was inadmissible?

The Court finds that the appellant was arrested without a warrant for a misdemeanor that occurred outside the arresting officer's presence where a police chief observed appellant driving erratically but requested another officer to come make the arrest.  The arresting officer did not observe the appellant's driving and arrested him outside the officer's county.  Appellant argued that the arrest was unlawful and the resulting breathalyzer test was inadmissible.  Reversing Appellant's conviction, the court held that the warrantless arrest was unlawful as the arresting officer did not observe any misconduct within his own county.  The court found that because appellant was not validly arrested, he was not bound by statute to submit to a breathalyzer test.

Conclusion:

Hence this Court reversed appellant's conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and remanded for further proceedings.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.