Traffic stops in question

by Doug Thompson

Two men arrested at driver checkpoints by sheriff’s deputies in December 2007 are challenging the legality of the road blocks, saying the department did not follow its own written procedures.

After a two-and-a-half hour hearing on a motion by attorneys for the two to throw out the charges and dismiss the charges, Circuit Judge Ray W. Grubbs gave both sides of the argument 21 days for final legal briefs on the matter and promised a decision in two-to-three weeks following that.

Deputies arrested Thomas J. Hall of Dublin on DUI charges after he stopped at a roadblock in Floyd County on Dec. 21, 2008.  At another roadblock on the same night, deputies arrested Larry Wayne Showalter of Floyd on charges of driving on a suspended license after being declared a habitual offender.

But attorneys for both men argued before Grubbs that the charges were illegal because the sheriff’s department violated its own written procedures for scheduling and selecting locations for the road blocks.

Virginia law, shaped by court decisions on past challenges to the legality of police road blocks, require law enforcement agencies to prepare and follow specific written guidelines for such road blocks.

Attorneys Beverly M. Davis and Richard W. Davis Jr., brothers in a law firm in Radford, offered as evidence the Floyd County Sheriff’s Office procedures document which says the Sheriff approves such road blocks and selects the locations from a list prepared by Virginia State Police.

From the witness stand, Sheriff Shannon Zeman said he had not personally reviewed the proposed schedule for the Dec. 21 road blocks and did not pick the locations but gave verbal approval to Chief Deputy Bruce Turner, who selected the locations.

Zeman said Turner, as chief deputy, is empowered under department policy to make such decisions, but both attorneys argued that the procedures document for the road blocks did not specifically delegate such authority to the chief deputy.

Turner told the court he made the decision in the sheriff’s absence and advised the sheriff of the stops after the fact.  Turner told the court that making such decisions was part of his job description with the department.

In his closing summary, Richard Davis said it is common for lawyers to argue the facts of a case when the law is against them or use the law when the facts aren’t in their favor.

“This is one of those rare cases where both the facts and the law are on our side,” Davis said.

Beverly Davis said the sheriff’s department failed to follow its own written procedures and, by not doing so, violated Virginia regulations that say such written policies must be followed “by dotting every ‘i’ and crossing every ‘t’.”

Commonwealth’s Attorney Stephanie Shortt argued that the sheriff’s department followed its own internal policies in the case and fulfilled the obligation of Virginia law.  The chain of comment, she said, was followed.

Grubbs’ decision could have far-reaching effects on arrests made by the sheriff’s department at driver checkpoints. If Grubbs rules in favor of the defendants’ motion, it not only would invalidate the charges against the two men but put in question every arrest made at the Dec. 21 road blocks.  It also could open the door for challenges to arrests made at other checkpoints in recent years.

Grubbs said he would rule on the cases after reviewing the testimony Tuesday and the briefs filed by the lawyers on both sides but added that “to be on the safe side, we need to go ahead and set a date for trial” in case he rules against the motion.

A trial date will be set at a hearing in December.