Donald Brian Slentz v. Commonwealth of Virginia
2102161
| Va. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- At ~12:30 a.m., Trooper Milyko followed Donald Slentz driving an older Ford Bronco and observed the vehicle drift twice onto/over the white fog line and onto the grassy shoulder.
- Milyko activated emergency lights immediately; his dash camera (which had limited nighttime quality) recorded the approach and the stop and Milyko narrated the video at trial.
- A second trooper, Wallace, testified he saw a large dust cloud on the right shoulder consistent with a vehicle leaving the paved lane.
- Slentz moved to suppress evidence, arguing the video showed only a tire touch of the fog line and did not corroborate Milyko’s testimony that the vehicle crossed onto the shoulder.
- The circuit court credited the troopers, found Milyko observed a violation of Va. Code § 46.2-804(2) (failing to maintain lane), denied suppression, and Slentz preserved appellate review by entering a conditional guilty plea to DUI (Va. Code § 18.2-266).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion | Slentz: dash-cam contradicts trooper; no crossing of fog line, so no reasonable suspicion | Commonwealth: trooper’s credible observation (supported by second trooper and dust) showed crossing/shoulder entry violating lane statute | Court: trooper credible; totality supports reasonable suspicion for a stop |
| Whether circuit court’s factual finding (crossing fog line) was plainly wrong | Slentz: video evidence disproves crossing | Commonwealth: video limited by distance/darkness; testimony and dust support finding | Court: factual finding not plainly wrong; defer to trial judge credibility determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 362 (Va. 2016) (appellate review principles for suppression rulings; defendant bears burden to show reversible error)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (reasonable-suspicion totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (de novo review of reasonable-suspicion/legal questions; deference to trial factfindings)
- Neal v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 233 (Va. Ct. App. 1998) (weaving within a lane can supply reasonable suspicion; isolated mild weaving may be insufficient)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant to Fourth Amendment stop analysis)