Last April, the United States Supreme Court in Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015), significantly limited the scope of a traffic stop. The officer in Rodriguez completed a traffic stop for driving on the shoulder of a highway after checking the vehicle registration and driver’s licenses of the driver and passenger, conducting a warrant check, returning all documents, and issuing the driver a warning ticket. The officer then asked the driver for consent to walk his drug dog around the vehicle, but the driver refused to give his consent. Nonetheless, the officer told the driver to turn off the ignition, leave the vehicle, and wait for a second officer. When the second officer arrived, the first officer walked his drug dog around the car, and the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. A search of the vehicle revealed methamphetamine. Seven to eight minutes had elapsed from the time the officer issued the written warning until the dog’s alert.
Motor Vehicles
Most Wanted: Automatic Emergency Brakes
There are several reasons why I like Volkswagen’s new “Dad, Stop!” commercial showcasing the emergency braking system in the 2016 Passat. First, I drive a teenager to school. He jumps out of the car as quickly as possible when we arrive. Apparently there is nothing to be gained socially by being seen with your mother. So I can identify. Second, I was rear-ended a few weeks ago. The back of my car was damaged, and the car that hit mine had to be towed from the scene. All of its airbags deployed on impact. I’m just glad no one was hurt. Automatic emergency braking (if it works the way it appears to in the commercial) would have prevented that accident.Third, my mother looked over at me in a similar way to the dad in the commercial as we were leaving my wedding rehearsal many years ago. When she looked back ahead, she saw brake lights. She swerved off the road to avoid hitting the car in front of us and ran over a fire hydrant. What a mess. Automatic emergency braking might have gotten us all to the rehearsal dinner on time.
The National Transportation Safety Board also thinks automatic emergency braking, which it calls “collision avoidance technology” is a laudable concept. In fact, promoting the availability of this technology made the NTSB’s 2016 Most Wanted List. NTSB has issued such a list for more than 25 years. The chairman described the list in a recent press conference as a “roadmap from lessons learned to lives saved.”
Figuring out how to Best Share the Road
Cycling is big on the street where I live. A bike shop recently opened nearby and cyclists frequently head out for Sunday afternoon group rides. Sometimes there’s a theme. A few months ago, the cyclists were all wearing tweed and tartan and many of the bikes were adorned with flowers. I find it both entertaining and uplifting to watch these folks ride.
I’m a bit less sanguine about the cyclists I encounter crossing Jordan Lake on Farrington Road at 5:30 p.m. on a weekday. That’s a busy, narrow road with no bike lane. During that time of day, when everyone is heading home from work, there often is little opportunity to pass a cyclist who isn’t traveling the speed limit.
And I’m downright hostile to cyclists who use the right hand edge of a single lane to pass a queue of motor vehicles stopped a stop light to claim a position in front.
My admittedly schizophrenic reaction to sharing the road with cyclists illustrates some of the difficulties faced by the working group charged with assisting the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in formulating statutory changes to better ensure the safety of bicyclists and motorists on the state’s roadways. Perhaps, then, it was predictable that NCDOT’s recommendations would be a mixed bag, generating both cheers and jeers from the cycling community.
The Latest on McNeely and Implied Consent
Here I go again (perhaps on my own) with another update on the state of implied consent after Missouri v. McNeely, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013). These updates occur more often than teeth-cleanings and may be awaited with the same degree of anticipation. But given that there’s a split of authority developing between the states, and North Carolina courts have not yet weighed in, I think these are developments worth following.
Need a ride? Call Uber. It’s officially regulated.
Uber was the talk of the table during our Thanksgiving meal. One of my cousins drives for Uber in her spare time. So does her boyfriend. They compete for who can earn the most extra spending money. I’ve used Uber myself several times. I’ve rated all my drivers a 5. And I’ve never worried about whether taking Uber was safe. But for those who do (my mother and aunt), legislation enacted by the General Assembly last session may provide some assurance.
Field Sobriety Testing and the Fifth Amendment
Most drivers stopped on suspicion of impaired driving are asked to submit to field sobriety tests before they are arrested. Those tests often include the three standardized tests, which researchers have found to enhance officers’ ability to accurately identify impairment: the one-leg stand, the walk-and-turn, and the horizontal gaze nystagmus tests. Officers sometimes use other types of field tests that have not been validated, such as asking participants to recite the alphabet or to conduct counting exercises. Evidence gained from any of these pre-arrest tests may be admitted against the defendant at trial without running afoul of the Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination. That’s because suspects aren’t in custody for purposes of the Fifth Amendment or Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) when they are temporarily detained for a traffic stop and are asked a moderate number of stop-related questions. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440 (1984); State v. Braswell, 222 N.C. App. 176 (2012). But what if the suspect is asked to perform field sobriety tests after he is arrested? Must he first be provided Miranda warnings?
More About Those Weird DWI Motions Procedures
You represent a defendant charged with DWI. You move to suppress evidence in district court. The district court enters a preliminary determination in your favor. The State appeals. The superior court disagrees with the district court and remands the case with instructions to deny your motion. Your client pleads guilty. You appeal to superior court. You want the court of appeals to consider the merits of your motion. What should you do to preserve that right?
Driving While Impaired with Children in the Car
When you can’t find what you’re looking for in North Carolina, you may have to extend your search out of state. Case in point: I’ve just discovered an opinion from the Minnesota Court of Appeals that answers the elusive question of how many aggravating factors apply if a person drives while impaired with more than one child in the car. And unlike some things you can only find in another state–like major league baseball and pot-laced gummy bears–you can bring this one home to the Old North State.
Technical Corrections Act Clarifies New DWLR Law
Author’s Note: Question 2 of this post and its answer have been amended to accurately reflect the state of the law before it was amended in the 2015 session.
Earlier this legislative session, the General Assembly enacted the North Carolina Drivers License Restoration Act, S.L. 2015-186, which amended the state’s driving while license revoked law and relieved certain defendants of the mandatory license revocations that historically have followed convictions for this offense. I blogged here about the particulars of the act, which recodified various violations of G.S. 20-28 and eliminated additional license revocations for certain types of DWLR convictions. Three questions about the import of the act immediately arose. Now that the technical corrections bill has become law, I have answers.
What’s NOT a Public Vehicular Area?
After the legislature broadened the definition of “public vehicular area” in 2006 to include areas “used by the public for vehicular traffic at any time,” many wondered whether there was any place where one could drive a vehicle (other than a private driveway) that wasn’t considered a public vehicular area. There was even some doubt about those private driveways, since members of the public can drive into them and sometimes do so even without an invitation from the resident. Moreover, North Carolina’s appellate courts had broadly interpreted the term for years—even when it was more narrowly defined. But the court of appeals put the brakes on an overly expansive reading of public vehicular area last year, rejecting, in State v. Ricks, ___ N.C. App. ___, 764 S.E.2d 692 (2014), the State’s argument that all property used by the public for vehicular traffic is, in fact, a public vehicular area.