Here’s an interesting DUI decision, from the Philadelphia area: Judge Suppresses Evidence.
Why is this interesting? Because in a case involving a political insider, the judge found the police officer was “less than truthful.”
The officer testified that he’s arrested 200 people for DUI, and 100 of them were later determined to be under the influence. The judge, finding that means 50% of his arrests were not intoxicated, said this called into question probable cause for the stop.
We are happy the judge ruled this way in this case, but we have to wonder about the other 100 or so who were apparently found guilty. Why was this new rule suddenly applied in a case involving an elected official?
We agree that stops should only be made with reasonable suspicion, and that arrests should only be made with probable cause. That’s the requirement under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and a host of Supreme Court cases.
We at FairDUI.org also believe that these rules should be applied by all judges in all cases, not just to protect political insiders.