Roseborough v. Com.
704 S.E.2d 414
| Va. | 2011Background
- At about 2:00 a.m. on January 15, 2007, Banks observed a single-vehicle accident on a private road within Watergate at Landmark; Roseborough was present, claiming his friend Jay crashed and ran.
- Officer Weinstein arrived; Roseborough described Jay as the driver, indicated they had been drinking, and provided limited identifying information about Jay.
- Roseborough exhibited signs of intoxication and refused a field sobriety test; he was arrested for driving while intoxicated at the scene.
- A search incident to arrest yielded the remote keyless entry device for the truck, with the ignition key still in the truck.
- At the police station, after Miranda rights, Roseborough consented to a breath test; the Intoxilyzer 5000 registered a BAC of .09 at 4:03 a.m.
- Roseborough was convicted in circuit court; on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Virginia Supreme Court granted review to address the admissibility of the BAC certificate under the implied-consent law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arrest was valid under the statute for warrantless misdemeanor arrests | Roseborough argued the private-road accident within a gated community is not a highway and thus not within the implied-consent framework. | Commonwealth contends the officer had authority to arrest at the accident scene within three hours for DUI. | Arrest invalid; no valid warrantless misdemeanor arrest occurred. |
| Whether the implied-consent certificate was admissible given an invalid arrest | Certificate admissible because implied-consent law applies when arrested for 18.2-266. | Implied-consent law did not apply due to invalid arrest. | Certificate inadmissible; implied-consent protections not triggered. |
| Whether voluntariness of the station breath test affects admissibility of the certificate | Willingness to take the test at the station bears on the test itself. | Voluntariness is irrelevant to the admissibility of the certificate under the implied-consent framework. | Irrelevant to admissibility; the crucial question is applicability of implied consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 399 (1991 Va.App.) (limits on warrantless misdemeanor arrests)
- Commonwealth v. Garrett, 276 Va. 590 (2008) (standard for reviewing implied-consent certificate admissibility)