Commonwealth of Virginia v. Dania Merlin Lemus
1024174
| Va. Ct. App. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- Trooper McGowan found Lemus seated in the driver’s seat of her stopped car on an I-395 on-ramp at ~9:00 p.m.; she said the transmission wouldn’t go into reverse but then said she pulled over to text and showed an open social media app.
- McGowan smelled alcohol, observed glassy eyes and slurred speech, and saw Lemus fumble through multiple ID cards before producing her driver’s license.
- A computer check revealed prior DUI convictions and license restrictions; Lemus denied the restrictions when confronted and persisted after a second check.
- Lemus refused to exit the vehicle for field sobriety tests and refused a preliminary breath test, stating she wanted a lawyer; McGowan observed no falling, swaying, stumbling, or erratic driving.
- McGowan arrested Lemus for DUI, driving with a revoked license, and stopping on the interstate; Lemus moved to suppress all evidence as the product of an arrest lacking probable cause.
- The circuit court granted suppression; the Commonwealth appealed under Va. Code § 19.2-398(A)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Lemus's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probable cause supported the DUI arrest | McGowan had sufficient observations (odor, glassy eyes, slurred speech), refusal of tests, and computer-verified priors to form probable cause | Refusal to perform sobriety tests and prior convictions should not be considered for probable cause; no observed erratic driving or loss of balance | Held: Totality of circumstances (odor, appearance, inconsistent statements, refusal, and priors) provided probable cause; arrest valid |
| Whether officer may consider refusal to perform field sobriety tests in probable cause analysis | Refusal is admissible as probative when accompanied by evidence of alcohol consumption and its discernable effect | Refusal cannot be considered absent stronger physical signs or observed impairment | Held: Refusal may be considered when accompanied by signs of impairment (citing Jones) |
| Whether officer may rely on database information of prior convictions in assessing probable cause | Officer may rely on reasonably trustworthy computerized records showing priors; such knowledge bears on probability of current offense | Prior convictions are irrelevant to probable cause and prejudicial | Held: Knowledge of priors from law-enforcement databases is properly considered for probable cause |
| Whether the Commonwealth has standing to appeal the suppression order | Trial court’s written order suppressed “all evidence obtained as a result of the arrest,” permitting Commonwealth appeal under § 19.2-398(A)(2) | Court’s oral ruling addressed only probable cause, so Commonwealth lacks appealable order | Held: Written order granted suppression of evidence; Commonwealth statutorily entitled to appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 52 (Va. 2010) (refusal to perform sobriety tests relevant when accompanied by evidence of alcohol consumption and its effects)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1949) (probable cause is based on probabilities from everyday life, not technical certainty)
- Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality of the circumstances test for probable cause)
- Schaum v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 498 (Va. 1975) (facts within officer’s knowledge, including prior conduct, may establish probable cause)
- Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1959) (probable cause exists when trustworthy information within officer’s knowledge would lead a prudent person to believe an offense has been committed)
- Boyd v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 179 (Va. Ct. App. 1991) (probable cause requires a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity)