News

Kiefer Sutherland was arrested on suspicion of DUI after registering twice California’s legal limit of .08 on a Breathalyzer test in West Hollywood September 25. Sutherland was stopped by Los Angeles Police after making an illegal U-turn. He was released on $25,000 bail and has a hearing scheduled for October 16.

DUI Charge is Second for Sutherland

It was the 40-year-old’s second DUI. He pleaded no contest to the first charge in 2004 and was given five years probation, which was violated by the latest arrest. A misdemeanor driving under the influence count carries a maximum sentence of a year in jail.

Los Angeles County Superior Court records show Sutherland was convicted for alcohol-related reckless driving in 1989 and 1993.

Sutherland currently stars in FOX’s television drama “24.” If Sutherland pleads guilty or is convicted of his second DUI charge, he faces a minimum of five days in jail.

He is the son of actor Donald Sutherland and Shirley Douglas. He has directed here and acted in 71 films, most notably as Lt. Jonathan James Kendrick in “A Few Good Men” with Tom Cruise, Demi Moore and Kevin Bacon in 1992. He has won an Emmy and Golden Globe award.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-me-sutherland26sep26,1,5981432.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews&track=crosspromo
[Back to Top]

MediaTakeOut.com has learned that former R&B great D'Angelo has been fined $1,500 and given a six-month suspended jail sentence after pleading guilty to driving with a suspended license and driving under the influence.

For more information, follow the link below.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

A George Mason University student had a blood alcohol level of .14 when she drove her convertible into the path of a tractor-trailer on a Capital Beltway ramp, killing herself and three friends, and she had been convicted of drinking and driving a year earlier, according to sources and court documents.

For more information, follow the link below.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

JOHNSON CITY, Tenn. — A minister and Christian radio station employee has been charged with indecent exposure as well as DUI and violation of the open container law, the Kingsport Times-News reported.

Tommy Tester, 58, of Bristol, Va., was arrested last week by Johnson City police after they say he urinated in front of children at a car wash.

For more information, follow the link below.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

Henrico County General District Court Judge Archie Yeatts ruled today that Virginia's new Civil Remedial Fees for certain traffic convictions are an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

The judge's ruling ordered the Clerk of the Henrico County General District Court to not collect any Civil Remedial Fees unless and until he was overruled by the Henrico County Circuit Court or higher Virginia appellate court.

The Henrico County Commonwealth's Attorney is appealing the case to the Henrico County Circuit Court.

To read the judges full opinion, click Henrico County Judge's Opinion Declaring Civil Remedial Fees Unconstitutional and to read a copy of the successful motion that was filed asking the judge to declare the statute unconstitutional click Motion to Declare Civil Remedial Fees Unconstitutional.
[Back to Top]

A Fairfax County planning commissioner and longtime community fixture has filed a federal lawsuit against three Fairfax police officers for allegedly assaulting him at the Sully District station, then handcuffing and humiliating him inside Sully Supervisor Michael R. Frey's office.

Ronald W. Koch, 62, has been a planning commissioner in Fairfax for 21 years, once chaired the county's land-use committee and has been honored for his civic and volunteer work. He is a retired computer specialist who worked for the Defense and Justice departments, and he was supplementing his retirement income by working as a process server, delivering subpoenas and other legal documents.

For more information, follow the link below.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

Defense attorney fees for actress Lindsay Loan must be skyrocketing.

Lohan Jailed for Second Time in a Week

Already facing a drunken driving charge in Beverly Hills, Lohan was arrested early July 24 by Santa Monica (Calif.) Police while chasing the mother of her personal assistant, who had quit her job with Lohan hours earlier.

The 21-year-old actress was charged with suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, possession of cocaine and driving on a suspended license. Just five days prior, Lohan was booked into the Beverly Hills jail from a May drunken driving charge and misdemeanor hit and run. That jail stay lasted 45 minutes when she posted a $30,000 bond.

Blood Test Reveals .12 and .13 Readings

Police smelled alcohol on Lohan at the scene but she refused to blow into a Breathalyzer machine. After a series of field sobriety tests, she was taken into custody, where her blood test revealed .12 and .13 blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) levels. The legal BAC limit in California is .08. Lohan was released from custody after posting a $25,000 bond.

Earlier this summer, Lohan had checked into a substance abuse center for the second time this year. In January, she was admitted to another substance abuse center.

Appearance on The Tonight Show is Cancelled

Lohan was scheduled to be on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" the same day of her arrest to promote her film "I Know Who Killed Me," but has since nixed the appearance. The film is scheduled for release July 27. Her attorney, Blair Berk said her client had relapsed and was again receiving medical care.

http://www.nbc4.com/entertainment/13743001/detail.html?dl=mainclick
[Back to Top]

According to the Kansas City Star newspaper, the National Football League (NFL) has suspended Kansas City Chiefs defensive end Jared Allen for two regular season games without pay. Allen will miss his team’s first two games of the season against the Houston Texans and the Chicago Bears. Allen originally was suspended for four games, but this was cut in half after the league heard Allen’s appeal. In addition, Allen was fined an additional game’s check.

Allen was planning on heading back to Arizona to work out with a personal trainer when initially being slapped with a four-game suspension. But now, the starting defensive end will remain in Kansas City to train and prepare for the team’s third game of the season – the Chiefs’ home opener -- against the Minnesota Vikings.

Allen, 25, was suspended by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell after twice being charged with DUI in 2006. Since the arrests, Allen has become involved in local charities, most notably a group that raises funds to combat juvenile diabetes. The former Idaho State University player pleaded no contest to the most recent charge in September and entered a diversion program to resolve the first DUI incident from May.

A fourth-round choice in the 2004 draft, Allen has developed into one of the league's top sack threats. He has 165 tackles, 27½ sacks, 10 forced fumbles, eight fumble recoveries and one interception in 47 appearances, 41 of them starts.

“Jared Allen is eligible to participate in all preseason team-meetings, practices and games during training camp,” Chiefs President Carl Peterson said. “Jared is also eligible to participate in team meetings and use team facilities during his two-week suspension. Jared is not, however, permitted to participate in team practices but he can be on-site during the suspension.

[Back to Top]

An amusement park ride employee was thrown to her death on the Mind Scrambler June 29, according to the New York Daily News. Twenty-one-year-old Gabriela Garin of White Plains was killed when vibrations from the ride threw her from a platform at the Playland Amusement Park in Rye. She had worked at the park for eight years.

Fatality Was Ride’s Second in Three Years

It was the second death on the ride in three years. In May 2004, 7-year-old Stephanie Dieudonne of New Rochelle was killed after she worked herself from a restraining bar on a car and fell. The Mind Scrambler spins riders around in the dark to flashing lights and loud music. It was the fourth fatality at the park in as many years.

The park was not cited for violations or required to make improvements to the ride after Dieudonne’s death, but officials then announced plans to add seat belts, additional lighting and a second attendant. However, some reports say there wasn’t a second attendant “on duty” when the recent tragedy occurred. The Mind Scrambler has been closed for the remainder of this summer. Playland is on Long Island Sound and features 50 rides, a pool and beach. The park attracts a million visitors a year.

Accident Occurred During Shift Change

On the night of her death, Garin had changed shifts with another ride operator but she continued to admit additional passengers, according to Peter Tartaglia, park spokesman. Garin told the new operator she would fasten the last riders into the car. But before Garin could vacate the ride area, the new operator stepped into a booth and started the ride, Tartaglia said. When the new operator noticed Garin had not stepped away from the platform, he shut it down 15 to 20 seconds later, Tartaglia said. By then, Garin had been thrown from the ride.

Westchester County Police spokesman Kieran O'Leary said, “There wasn’t very much anybody could do for her.” Garin was pronounced dead at the scene.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/06/30/2007-06-30_worker_20_dies_on_playland_ride.html
[Back to Top]

From the buff to the brig it was for one former Playboy Playmate two weeks ago. The onetime centerfold girl’s latest “photo op” came in an Oberlin, Ohio Police Department mug shot.

Jennifer Lyn Jackson, former Playboy Playmate was arrested June 30 after failing a sobriety test in Oberlin, an hour southwest of her native Cleveland. Oberlin Police arrested the former April 1989 centerfold model on suspicion of DUI according to MyFoxCleveland.com.

Illegal Drugs Found in Jackson’s Car

Investigating officers found marijuana, rolling papers, open beer as well as cigarettes and cigars Jackson allegedly stole from a convenience store. Jackson pled not guilty to drunk driving and theft in a July 3 court arraignment. She faces six charges in all from theft to drug abuse and has a court date July 11.

Jackson registered a 0.77 on the Oberlin BAC test. The legal limit in Ohio is 0.08. A police cruiser dash cam video shows Jackson almost falling down while taking the test. Police said her vehicle had previously crossed the double yellow line on State Route 58.

Playmate Has Criminal Record

The former Playmate has a criminal record to accompany her portfolio. In March 2005, Jackson and associate Stephen Santa were arrested in Ohio for receiving stolen property, stemming from the burglary of $600 in power tools taken from a mobile home.

When photographed for Playboy at 20, Jackson was attending Kent State University pursuing a double major in finance and business administration.

Photographs of Jackson in the nude and in lingerie have appeared in 10 issues of Playboy from 1989 to 1999, according to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia.

http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=51215
[Back to Top]

Grammy Award-winning rapper "Eve" Jihan Jeffers pleaded no contest June 28 to driving with a BAC above the California legal limit of .08. She was stopped by the Los Angeles Police Department April 26 after being jumping the center median strip on Hollywood Boulevard. Under the plea agreement -- a single misdemeanor count -- the second charge of DUI was dropped by the Superior Court, according to the Associated Press (AP).

Rapper To Be Monitored With Bracelet

Jeffers must wear an alcohol-detection bracelet for 45 days, attend 10 Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and a three-month alcohol education program. Jeffers had faced a maximum sentence of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine, said the AP.

After her plea, she was sentenced to 36 months of probation and a $390 fine. If the monitor reveals Jeffers had consumed alcohol, the initial 45-day period will begin again. If she tests positive for alcohol a second time, she will be sentenced to 10 days in the county jail. She must appear in court July 20 to prove she fulfilled the court’s edicts, according to the wire service.

This was handled like any other of our DUI cases," said Frank Mateljan, spokesman for the city attorney’s office. "This was an appropriate sentence, we believe, for the facts of this case."

Jeffers, a protégé of rapper Dr. Dre, won a Grammy Award in 2001 for the single "Let Me Blow Ya Mind," with Gwen Stefani. Her movie credits include "Barbershop.”

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/296374/rapper_and_actress_eve_takes_plea_deal.html
[Back to Top]

The parents of 13-year-old Kaitlyn Lasitter filed a lawsuit July 12 against Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom of Louisville. The teen lost both feet June 21 when a cable snapped on the Superman Tower of Power thrill ride. Inspectors said the ride had no maintenance problems. The ride lifts riders 177 feet in the air, then drops them 154 feet at 50 miles an hour.

The girl’s name was not released. She was transported to a hospital and is in stable condition.

Inspectors Looking for Cause

The Louisville Courier-Journal (LCJ) reported Bill Clary, spokesman for the Kentucky Department of Agriculture’s Office of Consumer and Environmental Protection, still is seeking answers. “It looks like a cable caused the injury, but we have no idea what caused the accident,” he said. Clary said if a law was broken, there could be criminal and civil penalties. "We’re a long way off from that.” He said the ride passed state inspection in April. The only blemish on the ride’s record was a loose handrail Clary said.

Maryland-based Intamin Ltd. designed Superman Tower of Power but the ride was installed by Six Flags of Louisville in 1995. Intamin has supplied 24 thrill rides at amusement parks around the world, said WKLY-TV in Louisville, Ky., The company is credited with inventing the first free-fall ride.

Treva Smith witnessed the aftermath. "The lady was just sitting there and had no legs," Smith said. She was just calm, probably in shock from everything."

Accident is Fourth at Louisville Park

There have been previous incidents at the Louisville park, said the LCJ. In1994, a 7-year-old critically was critically when two Starchaser roller coaster cars collided. The incident was caused by operator error. Six were injured on the same ride a year earlier when two cars were rear-ended by a third. In1992, a passenger dislocated both knees while riding the Shoot the Chute. Her raft hit an abutment at the end of the water slide.

In 1999, a 12-year-old died on a California ride similar to Louisville’s Tower of Power when his harness let loose and he fell 50 feet.

The International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions recorded 1,713 injuries on rides in 2005, after 300 million people took 1.8 billion rides. Of the 1,713 hurt 132 were hospitalized.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070623/NEWS01/706230462&GID=0VPU5OcU4nQoNsChgzNQqoY8Q6tw2fNC5IDu52OhCog%3D
[Back to Top]

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled yesterday that passengers in vehicles pulled over by the police have the same rights as drivers to challenge the legality of the traffic stop when it results in an arrest.

The court said that passengers, like the driver, are "seized" by police when the vehicle they are traveling in is stopped and are thus covered by the Fourth Amendment and allowed to challenge unreasonable searches and seizures.

For more information, follow the link below.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

Virginia State Police (VSP) said alcohol was found inside a vehicle where four girls were killed and one was seriously wounded June 14 on the Capital Beltway in Northern Virginia. VSP did not say whether alcohol was a factor in the crash. The fatal accident occurred in an area known as the “Springfield Mixing Bowl,” where the Beltway (Interstate 495) intersects with Interstates 95 and 395. Every day, 430,000 vehicles pass through this Springfield Interchange. It has been under construction since December 2000.

VSP said the case is now a criminal investigation. Since no passenger in the vehicle was 21 years of age, police are investigating who bought or gave the girls the alcohol.

Driver Changed Lanes Into Path of Truck

The five girls in the Volkswagen Cabriolet convertible had left a downtown District of Columbia all-night graduation party sponsored by West Potomac High School at the ESPN Zone. The party was scheduled from midnight until 4 a.m. Buses were scheduled to leave the Alexandria school at 11 p.m. and return to the school at 5 a.m.

The driver of the car, identified as Elaine Thaxton, had been arrested and charged with DUI on the Fairfax County Parkway in June of 2006. She temporarily lost her driver's license. On the night of the Beltway tragedy, Thackston's Volkswagen was traveling westbound on the Inner Loop. Next is where reports conflict one another.

One says the driver exited left onto the ramp for I-95, then swerved back through a safety zone back onto the Beltway, when she was hit from behind by a tractor-trailer. The other report said the driver decided at the last moment to exit left onto the ramp for I-95 and when she did so, veered through the safety zone and into the path of an oncoming semi already on the exit ramp to I-95. The 42-year-old driver of the truck involved in the crash was not injured or charged by VSP.

Beltway Road Paving Had Closed Two Lanes

Steve Titunik, Virginia Department of Transportation spokesman, said only one lane was open for through traffic at the scene of the accident. The two right-hand lanes were shut down for a repaving operation. He said traffic was slowed down in that area at the time of the crash.

Police identified the victims as Thackston, 20, a student at George Mason University; Sarah Renee Carter, 19, who recently graduated from West Potomac High School; and Lydia Margaret Petkoff and Renee Shelkin, both of whom graduated from West Potomac the previous day. Three of the girls were ejected from the car and died instantly. A fourth passenger died at the scene. The fifth passenger, 17-year-old Jenna Rexroat, survived non-life threatening injuries and is at Fairfax Hospital.

West Potomac High School Principal Rima Veslind sent a letter to teachers Friday morning, which read: "This morning we must go forward with our final exam testing. However, there will be students who are aware of last night's accident and may melt down. You can decide what is best for your students about their finals. If a student is not able to test, you can choose to either waive the final or give partial credit for whatever they are able to do.”

Renee Shelkin was to become a freshman this fall at Virginia Tech. Her grandfather, Barry Shelkin, said the teenager had focus. "She had everything planned. She knew what she wanted, and she went after it.”

[Back to Top]

One more deadly massacre in Blacksburg, Va. was avoided when a drunken driver lost control of her sport-utility vehicle and swerved onto a crowded sidewalk, hitting eight pedestrians. All were treated at hospitals but none sustained life-threatening injuries. The vehicle careened out of control just as downtown bars were closing. The SUV knocked down a tree and broke a light pole before coming to rest around 2 a.m. Saturday, June 18.

Just two months earlier, a Tech student shot and killed 32 students and wounded 25 others before taking his own life in an engineering building on campus. Not including the loss of life during the Civil War, the Tech shooting was the deadliest in U.S. history.

Twenty-year-old Mary Bowen registered a 0.20 Breathalyzer test at the scene. She told Blacksburg Police she was text-messaging on her cell phone when she lost control of her 2001 Toyota RAV4. Traveling north, her vehicle swerved across southbound lanes and jumped the curb, coming to rest near a restaurant on the 200 block of Main Street. Six of the injured were taken to Montgomery Regional Hospital and two others were taken to Carilion New River Valley Medical Center. The driver, a Virginia Tech student from Winchester, was not injured.

...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

A District of Columbia Superior Court judge found Marion Barry not guilty June 13 of DUI and three other charges.

"I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict,” said Judge Richard Ringell regarding the charges against the D.C. Council member after he was stopped and arrested by U.S. Secret Service officers early on the morning of Sept. 10, 2006.

Barry Faced DUI, Three Other Charges

Barry was charged with DUI, operating a motor vehicle while impaired, driving an unregistered vehicle and misuse of temporary tags. Arresting officers said Barry stopped at a green light and later drove through a red light. The officers testified Barry smelled of alcohol, was stumbling, had red eyes and slurred speech. Their testimony that Barry was intoxicated was based on opinion, not the Breathalyzer test that showed only a .02 alcohol level. The legal intoxication level in DC is .08. That test result was a key point in the closing argument of Frederick Cooke, Jr., Barry's attorney.

"I know my balance is off," Barry testified. "Age is one of the things ... to your eyes and balance." He is 71. Barry once served six months in prison after being videotaped smoking crack cocaine in a D.C. hotel during a 1990 Federal Bureau of Investigation sting. At the time, Barry was serving his third term as D.C. mayor.

Former Mayor Was On Five Medications When Arrested>/h2>

"I had only one glass of wine, and there weren't chemicals in my body," Barry told the court last week. He said he was taking at least five medications for his diabetes, high blood pressure and knee pain. "I don't think I was impaired or under the influence," Barry testified.

Barry said he tries not to drink during his recovery from substance abuse. But on Sept. 10, Barry was having a celebratory drink after learning he won an award from the Congressional Black Caucus. Barry would not name the lawmaker, a woman, who was with him in the car when he was arrested.

...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

The financial returns for the biggest malpractice insurers for 2006 are in.

Follow the link below for more information.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

Twelve riders of an Arkansas roller coaster took the ride of their lives June 9 but it was one they’d never want to repeat.

Dozen Strapped In, Upside-Down for 30 Minutes

When a power outage near the facility shut down the “X-Coaster” at the Springs & Crystal Falls Amusement Park in Hot Springs during a steamy Saturday of fun, the unlucky dozen dangled upside down for 30 minutes at150 feet in the air before fire department rescue workers in a ladder truck could reach them, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“You could tell who got off the (X-Coaster) because their faces were red," said Angela Salter, who had been riding another roller coaster, “The Gauntlet,” when that shut down. Park Workers freed Salter and others.

An “X-Coaster” passenger, Jay Plummer, 37, was transported to a nearby hospital after he complained of neck pain and a headache. Plummer’s girlfriend, Connie McBride, said she was frightened. “I love the amusement park, but I will never get on the X-Coaster again."

Tree Limb/Animal on Electrical Wires Was Cause

Entergy Corp., the local power company providing electrical service to the amusement park, investigated but found no faulty wiring. "The cause could be a tree limb or an animal," said Mark Hunt, general manager of Entergy customer service. "We found no faults but continue to investigate until we find the cause."

The Arkansas Democrat Newspaper reported the ride reopened after power was restored the next day.

The amusement park is owned by Themeparks, LLC and opened in the late 70s. The “X-Coaster” is one of eight thrill-rides at the park. It is a steel, sit-down coaster which has the highest inversion in the world at 150 feet. It opened in April, 2006 and was built by Maurer Sohne, a steel construction company and roller coaster manufacturer founded in Munich, Germany in 1876.

...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

The Virginia State Police have released traffic statistics for Memorial Day Weekend 2007. 13 adults and one minor were killed in traffic accidents. 4 of the deaths invoved motorcyclists- all of whom were wearing helmets.

However, quite disturbingly, in the remaining four fatal crashes involving passenger vehicles, none of the nine drivers and passengers killed was wearing a safety belt.

“The preliminary numbers from this past holiday weekend are truly disturbing from a traffic safety and enforcement perspective,” said Colonel W. Steven Flaherty, Virginia State Police Superintendent. “Virginia is in the midst of its annual Click It or Ticket campaign and yet we still had more than 1,400 adults and children not buckled up while traveling on the road.”

The Memorial Day weekend coincided with the nationwide Click It or Ticket campaign, which began Monday, May 21, 2007, and continues through June 3, 2007. During the 2007 holiday weekend, Virginia State Police troopers statewide cited 1,126 safety belt violations and 308 child restraint violations. Virginia’s safety belt usage rate as of May 2007 was 72 percent. The Commonwealth’s 2007 goal for seat belt usage is 82 percent.

Through the nationwide Operation C.A.R.E. (Combined Accident Reduction Effort) initiative, Virginia State Police patrolled 348,450 miles of Virginia roadways and assisted 3,819 motorists during the holiday statistical counting period.

The total summonses and/or arrests statewide by state police included 9,654 for speeding, 3,070 for reckless driving, 237 for DUI and 5,243 for other hazardous violations.

The Memorial Day weekend traffic fatalities occurred in the city of Suffolk and the counties of Accomack, Bedford, Culpeper, New Kent, Roanoke and Stafford. Two separate traffic fatalities occurred in both Bedford County and New Kent County. One of the Bedford County crashes claimed the lives of three men. A total of four were killed in the Roanoke County crash.

The four fatal motorcycle crashes occurred in Culpeper, New Kent and Stafford counties. The bicyclist was killed in Bedford County.

Read more about Virginia Memorial Day Traffic Accidents and Traffic Tickets.
[Back to Top]

The Smooth Operator Program, a joint effort by Virginia, Maryland and DC law enforcement agencies to crack down on Aggressive Driving, announced the first of several "waves" which began on June 3 and continues until June 9, 2007

Smooth Operator is the name given to a special effort by D.C., Maryland and Virginia to enforce aggressive driving laws.

Cpl. Jonathan Green of the Maryland Transportation Authority Police says these are things you shouldn't do any day of the year: "Speeding, passing, overtaking, failure to obey lane controls, traffic signals and lights."

The first of what are called "waves" of the Smooth Operator Program starts Monday and runs through June 9. A wave is nothing but a crackdown- meaning there will be more officers on the road writing more tickets.

Here are the dates of all the 2007 Law Enforcement Waves, which coincide with the busiest summer weekends, including the 4th of July and Labor Day weekends:

l

2007 Law Enforcement Waves
June 3 - 9, 2007
July 1 - 7, 2007
August 5 - 11, 2007
September 2 - 15, 2007

[Back to Top]

Two people police in Culpeper, VA, say were hoping to avoid an arrest for DUI in Virginia chose instead to head home on horseback - and ended up under arrest anyway.

Read more about Virginia Police catch Drunk Horseback Riders.
[Back to Top]

Police across the region plan to set up traffic checkpoints again this Memorial Day weekend to crack down on drunken drivers, but a national trade association is urging authorities to abandon the tactic.

For more information, follow the link below.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

YORK -- A 47-year-old agent in the United States Secret Service was stopped early Saturday and charged with driving under the influence.

For more information, follow the link below.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

Jerry Buss, owner of the Los Angeles Lakers, was arrested in Carlsbad, Calif. early on the morning of May 29 for investigation of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Buss Failed Sobriety Test

Buss was taken into custody shortly before 1 a.m. after he drove his gold Mercedes-Benz station wagon the wrong way on a street marked with double yellow lines, California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Tom Kerns said. He was taken into custody after failing a sobriety test.

Officers followed Buss, who had his high beams on while driving southbound on Carlsbad Boulevard, near the downtown area. Officers were traveling northbound and observed Buss taking a wide turn and crossing over double yellow lines.

According to the police report, "Mr. Buss didn't react right away,” but them moved his vehicle over to the curb. "He was cooperative," said Kerns. "It was an uneventful DUI arrest."

Buss: "It's a Mistake I Won't Make Again"

Buss said, "Although I was driving only a short distance, it was a bad decision and I was wrong to do it," the 74-year-old said. "It was a mistake I will not make again."

A 23-year-old woman, Jeannana M. Flores of New York, was in the vehicle with Buss but was not arrested.

The officer said Buss was "relatively cooperative" when placed under arrest. He was booked into the Vista Detention Facility near Oceanside jail for investigation of drunken driving and driving with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.08 or above. Buss resides in Carlsbad.

Buss was released from custody10 hours later, according to the San Diego County Sheriff's Department Web site. Kerns said the final results of Buss' BAC test won't be available for three weeks.

Link: latimes/com/sports
[Back to Top]

Rebecca Perry, Alexandria Superintendent of Schools, is out of a job when her contract expires next June. By a 5-4 vote, School Board members decided not to renew the contract.

Its' decision smells, almost like an aged glass of Chardonnay.

Personal Error in Judgment

In 2004, Ms. Perry visited an Alexandria restaurant after an evening meeting. Nobody knew what was served from the menu but Perry did order two glasses of wine. On the way home, she was stopped by Alexandria police and arrested for driving under the influence. Perry pled guilty to the charge. When her contract came up for renewal later that year, she won the support of the Board for a new one. But a School Board reelection in 2006 turned over eight of nine positions.

Last week, board members would not speak publicly about their decision, honoring privacy laws and for fear of defamation of character. In fact, their attorneys advised them not to speak out about their vote.

Fiscal irresponsibility was the lone criticism of Perry. Her 8% proposed budget increase in operating costs was double what the Alexandria City Council had suggested. Even so, the School Board approved the budget increase by a 5-4 vote.

Mark Wilkoff, who served on the School Board from 2000 to 2005, said the lack of reasoning indicated questionable motives among the five members who voted to not renew Perry’s contract. "The politics of hate and revenge have won," Wilkoff said. "And the children of Alexandria are the losers."

Student Body Achieved Under Perry

To her credit, Perry sustained accreditation for 14 of the 16 public schools in the city. Before her arrival, only two had accreditation. Perry was credited with improving minority achievement and presided over a student SAT score hike while those in neighboring school districts fell.

She assumed the superintendent’s position in 2001 and came to Alexandria from Mecklenburg County, Va., (which borders North Carolina)., where she served as superintendent three years. Before that, she served 21 years in the Fauquier County Public School System. Perry is the mother of five children, all of whom received a public-school education.

The Connection Newspapers reported some board members said Perry had a domineering attitude and was not open to discussion. However, S. Howard Woodson, president of the Alexandria branch of the NAACP, felt otherwise. ”I think this is based on personal vendettas and political agendas. By not allowing public input into the decision, the board was cowardly in its action. If this decision was the right one to make, why not allow the public to comment on it before it was made?"

Washington Post Endorses Superintendent

In a May 27 editorial, The Washington Post called Perry’s tenure “successful.” The article read, “Given the evident progress the district has made and given that most education experts say that turnover tends to undercut reform efforts, the call for a different direction is inexplicable.” Commenting on her drunk-driving arrest three years ago, the Post editorial said, “…she paid a price for that dangerous lack of judgment, and the time has passed for that to be reason for her ouster.”

[Back to Top]

The father of former St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Josh Hancock filed a wrongful death lawsuit in St. Louis Circuit Court May 24, claiming Mike Shannon’s Steaks & Seafood Restaurant provided drinks to his son for nearly four hours on April 29, the night he was killed in an auto accident.

Father Said Drinks Kept Coming

Dean Hancock of Tupelo, Miss. did not specify financial damages sought in the suit. The restaurant is owned by Mike Shannon, Cardinals broadcaster and former third baseman on three World Series teams in the 1960s. Shannon is listed as a defendant in the suit, as is his daughter, Patricia Shannon Van Matre, the restaurant manager. In part, the lawsuit stated, “the intoxication of Joshua Morgan Hancock on said occasion was involuntary.” Bryan Burwell of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported May 25 Van Matre tried in vain to persuade Hancock to take a taxi from the restaurant.

Hancock, 29, died when his SUV rammed the back of a tow truck that was stopped in the left-hand lane with warning lights flashing on Interstate 64 in St. Louis just before 1 a.m.

Driver's BAC Was 0.157

Police said Hancock’s blood alcohol content (BAC) level was 0.157, almost twice Missouri’s legal BAC limit of 0.08. Police said Hancock was driving 68 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone and was talking on a cell phone upon impact. He was not wearing a seat belt. Police Chief Joe Mokwa said marijuana was found in Hancock’s SUV, but toxicology reports listed alcohol as the only intoxicant in Hancock’s system.

Suit Names Multiple Defendants

Other defendants in the father’s suit include Eddie's Towing, the company whose flatbed tow truck was struck by Hancock's SUV; tow truck driver Jacob Edward Hargrove and Justin Tolar, the driver whose stalled car on Interstate 64.

Keith Kantack, legal counsel for Hancock said, "It's understood that for the entire 3½ hours that Josh Hancock was there that he was handed drinks. It's our understanding that from the moment Josh Hancock entered Mike Shannon's [Restaurant] that night, he was never without a drink."

The suit claims Van Matre was present at the restaurant and knew Hancock was intoxicated but still allowed bar staff to serve him alcohol. The suit also states: Tolar was negligent in allowing his car to hit the wall and block the left-hand lane; Hargrove failed to provide adequate warning to approaching motorists; Tolar was negligent in allowing his vehicle to reach the point where it stalled on the highway and for failing to move it out of the way of oncoming traffic. A police report said the car became stalled when it spun out after being cut off by another vehicle.

Attorney Criticizes Towing Service

Police said Hargrove noticed the stalled vehicle and stopped to help. The report said he told officers he was there five-to-seven minutes before his truck was hit by Hancock's SUV. However, Kantack said the tow truck may have been there up to 15 minutes, yet failed to get the stalled vehicle out of the way.

"Were the police contacted?" Kantack said. "Why weren't flares put out? Why was the tow truck there for an exorbitant amount of time?"

Kantack said other defendants could be added. He declined to speculate on whether the Cardinals or Major League Baseball would be sued. Since the fatal accident, the Cardinals and eight other Major League Baseball teams have banned alcohol from the locker room following games. Five other clubs are reviewing current policies on making alcohol available to players. Hancock said in a statement, “The facts and circumstances of Josh's death have caused great pain to all of Josh's family." As administrator of his son's estate, the father said he has an obligation to represent the family on all issues, "including any legal actions necessary against those who contributed to the untimely and unnecessary death."

[Back to Top]

The Associated Press reported Lindsay Lohan was arrested on suspicion of DUI at 5:30 Sunday morning, May 27, after her convertible struck a curb on Sunset Boulevard in Beverly Hills just five blocks from her residence. A bodyguard had dropped her off at her car after she and friends were bar-hopping through the early-morning hours, according to Entertainmentwise.com.

Lohan was treated at a hospital for minor injuries. Two passengers in her $180,000 2005 Mercedes SL-65 were not injured.

Cocaine Found at the Scene

It appeared the 20-year-old actress was speeding when she hit the curb, according to Lt. Mitch McCann. At the scene, police found a drug tentatively identified as cocaine. McCann said Lohan did not have the drug on her presence.

Beverly Hills Sheriffs responded to a 911 call about a driver losing control of a vehicle at Sunset Blvd. and Foothill Road. Police later arrested Lohan at a hospital for investigation of misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, McCann said. Because she was admitted to a hospital, Lohan was released from police custody. At a specified date, Lohan will have to appear in court August 24 o answer the citation.

Incident was Lohan’s Third in Two Years

The crash was Lohan's third accident in two years. In October 2005, Lohan and a passenger received minor injuries when her convertible hit a van in West Hollywood. However, authorities said the van driver, who also received minor injuries, was at fault. Earlier the same year, Lohan collided with a minivan when she made a U-turn as the van, carrying paparazzi, trailed her from a Los Angeles restaurant. A photographer was arrested for investigation of assault with a deadly weapon but prosecutors declined to charge him. That crash prompted Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign a law that set steep financial penalties for paparazzi who commit assaults while trying to obtain celebrity photographs.

Lohan checked into a rehabilitation center for substance abuse treatment in January. Her publicist confirmed the actress was attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Lohan told Allure magazine she decided to enter the Wonderland Center at the suggestion of her therapist.

Lohan's latest movie, "Georgia Rule," is in theaters now. The actress' other screen credits include "Mean Girls," "Bobby," "A Prairie Home Companion" and "Freaky Friday."

.
[Back to Top]

The crackdown on underage drinking in Henrico County continues, with 16 more arrests last weekend at two different parties.

Since September, 2006, the number of underage persons arrested by Henrico County Police for underage possession of alcohol have exceeded 200. Similar crackdowns are in progress in other localities around Richmond, including Chesterfield County. The police efforts coincide with prom and graduation season.

To read more, click here.
[Back to Top]

FREDERICKSBURG -- After 10 months on the job, William J. Frawley was fired as president of the University of Mary Washington yesterday. The board of visitors unanimously concluded that his dismissal would be in the school's best interests.

For more information, follow the link below.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

Michael Vick blamed family members for taking advantage of his generosity after a police raid found evidence of dog fighting at property he owns in Virginia.

An animal rights group scoffed at that explanation, saying it's long suspected the Atlanta Falcons quarterback was involved in the fight-to-the-death activity.
[Back to Top]

Henrico County prosecutors yesterday won their bid to have the manslaughter trial of 16 year-old Deep Run High School student Sarah Ann Haislip moved from Henrico County Juvenile Court to Henrico County Circuit Court, where she will be tried as an adult.

Henrico County Circuit Court Judge L.A. Harris Jr. granted the motion of Henrico County prosecutors to have Haislip certified as an adult and seek an indictment against Haislip, 16, who already stands charged as a juvenile on a count of aggravated involuntary manslaughter in the New Year's Day death of Wesley Hunter Taylor.

Taylor was killed when his vehicle was broadsided shortly after 12:30 a.m. on Jan. 1 by a Jeep Cherokee that ran a red light in front of Short Pump Town Center, according to testimony in an earlier proceeding in Henrico Juvenile Court. Police said Haislip was at the wheel and had been drinking.

Under Virginia law, before a juvenile may be tried as an adult, a certification hearing must be held. Yesterday's ruling reverses a previous ruling by a Henrico Juvenile Court judge that the prosecution did not meet its burden for certification as an adult and that the case shoud remain in Henrico Juvenile Court.

To read the full article, click here.
[Back to Top]

Virginia law enforcement officials make no secret that they have stepped up their enforcement of Reckless Driving Speeding and other traffic laws. There is another huge motive other than highway safety behind the traffic crackdown- money! This motivation could not be clearer than the recent Republican transportation bill which allocated $57 to $108 million in revenue from traffic ticket fines!

In Virginia, anyone doing above 80 mph at any speed limit or doing 20 mph or more above the posted speed limit, can and will be ticketed for Reckless Driving Speeding as opposed to Speeding. The differences in penalties are enormous. A speeding ticket carries a maximum $250 fine. Reckless Driving Speeding is a criminal offense, which carries up to a $2,500 fine, a year in jail, and a 6 month license suspension.

To read more about the expected fines in the transportation budget, click here.
[Back to Top]

A Committee of the Virginia General Assembly ended consideration of a proposed law which spared DUI offenders the embarrassment of displaying “scarlet letter” license plates.

Virginia’s scarlet letter bill would have required drivers, convicted of DUI for the third time, to display a yellow license plate with red numbers, showing that they were repeat DUI offenders. The plates would have cost $500 and be required for five years. Similar scarlet letter bills in other states usually propose pink license plates.

One of the authors of Virginia's proposed law stated he thinks the affective solution for drunk driving is humiliation.
To read the proposed Virginia DUI license plate law, click here.
[Back to Top]

Virginia is using helicopters and muscle cars to increase their enforcement of traffic laws, especially Reckless Driving Speeding.

Law enforcement officials dmit the emphasis on targeting speeders and reckless drivers. "The recent upsurge in enforcement is a direct result of the department placing an increased emphasis on speeding and reckless drivers," said Lt. Nick E. Saunders, commander of the Virginia State Police aviation unit.
To read more about police helicopters using VASCAR, click here. To read more about the new muscle cars used by the Virginia State Police, click here.
[Back to Top]

In the first three months of 2006, there were 28 homicides in the city of Richmond.

So far this year, there have been six.

Statistics show fewer violent crimes such as rape, aggravated assault and robbery of an individual.

Property crimes -- arson, bur- glary, larceny and auto theft also have dipped markedly in the first three months of 2007 compared with the same period last year.

Major crime -- a combination of all violent crimes and property crimes -- is down 18 percent.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

The Center for Justice and Democracy has compiled an interesting list of some of the more lawsuit-happy members of the Tort Reform movement. The names on the list may surprise you.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

Henrico County's crackdown on underage drinking, Operation Party Crashers, has resulted in about 100 alcohol-related arrests since September and renewed discussions on how big a deal teen drinking is.

Jeff Levy says underage drinking is a very big deal.

For more information, follow the link below.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

Bond was granted Monday afternoon to a Super Bowl-winning athlete arrested Sunday on gun and drug possession charges.

Norfolk native Dexter Reid was pulled over early Sunday at Dam Neck Road and General Booth Blvd. on suspicion of DUI, police said. That’s when they say they found a handgun and marijuana in his car.

For more information, follow the link below.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

The Ignition Interlock System is one way Virginia is cracking down on DUI offenders. Any first time offender who has a blood alcohol level above .15 is required to have the device for 6 months. Second time offenders are required to have ignition interlock for at least 6 months, and up to three years.

The system registers your alcohol level. If you blow below a .02, you've passed the test. You can then start your engine. Because the device requires a special breathing technique, it makes it difficult for someone else to blow into it for you.

For more information, follow the link below.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

It has been a dangerous and deadly few months for the commuters of Washington, D.C.

Since November of 2006, citizens of the D.C. metropolitan area have seen train derailments, transit worker deaths, fires on the rail lines, and multiple accidents involving Metro buses that have resulted in fatalities.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

By 2011 one in every 178 U.S. residents will live in prison, according to a new report released today by the Public Safety Performance Project of The Pew Charitable Trusts. Public Safety, Public Spending: Forecasting America's Prison Population 2007-2011 projects that by 2011 America will have more than 1.7 million men and women in prison, an increase of more than 192,000 from 2006. That increase could cost taxpayers as much as $27.5 billion over the next five years beyond what they currently spend on prisons.

For more information, follow the link below.
...Read More Details
[Back to Top]

The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed convictions for "possession of cocaine with intent to distribute" and "possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony" against a criminal defendant because the officer, who pulled the vehicle over solely because an otherwise valid inspection sticker was partially peeling away from the vehicle's windshield, lacked the Constitutionally mandated "reasonable suspicion" to justify the traffic stop.

The full opinion is re-printed below:

MATTHEW TREMAINE MOORE
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIARecord No. 2091-05-2.
Court of Appeals of Virginia, Teleconference.
February 13, 2007.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Henrico County, Burnett Miller, III, Judge.

Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judge McClanahan and Senior Judge Fitzpatrick.

OPINION BY
CHIEF JUDGE WALTER S. FELTON, JR.
Matthew Tremaine Moore (appellant) appeals his convictions, following his conditional pleas of guilty, for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute in violation of Code § 18.2-248 and possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. He argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during an investigatory stop of his vehicle, based solely on an observation by the arresting officer that an otherwise valid inspection sticker was partially "peeling" away from the vehicle's windshield. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
I. BACKGROUND

When we review a trial court's denial of a suppression motion, "[w]e view the evidence in a light most favorable to . . . the prevailing party below, and we grant all reasonable inferences fairly deducible from that evidence." Commonwealth v. Grimstead, 12 Va. App. 1066, 1067, 407 S.E.2d 47, 48 (1991) (citation omitted). "[W]e are bound by the trial court's findings of historical fact unless `plainly wrong' or without evidence to support them." McGee v. Commonwealth, 25

Page 2
Va. App. 193, 198, 487 S.E.2d 259, 261 (1997) (en banc) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996)). "However, we consider de novo whether those facts implicate the Fourth Amendment, and if so, whether the officers unlawfully infringed upon an area protected by the Fourth Amendment." Hughes v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 447, 454, 524 S.E.2d 155, 159 (2002) (en banc) (citing McGee, 25 Va. App. at 198, 487 S.E.2d at 261).
At 3:30 p.m. on February 15, 2005, Officer Bryan of the Henrico County Police Department was sitting in a marked police vehicle parked in a grocery store parking lot, facing Cool Lane, "a foot or two off the roadway." Officer Bryan saw a white 2001 Ford drive past his position, some five feet away. He observed that a portion of a valid inspection sticker1 on the Ford's windshield was partially peeling from the windshield. Officer Bryan testified that based on his experience, an inspection sticker not fully attached to a vehicle's windshield often "did not belong on that car." He initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle to further investigate the inspection sticker.
Prior to initiating the traffic stop of the Ford, Officer Bryan "ran" the vehicle's license plates and learned that the vehicle was a rental car with valid plates and registration. He testified that the sole reason he stopped the vehicle was because the valid inspection sticker was partially peeling from the windshield. When he approached the vehicle to speak with its driver, he smelled marijuana emanating from the vehicle's interior. Appellant, the Ford's driver, admitted he had been smoking marijuana in the vehicle. During his subsequent search of the vehicle, Officer Bryan recovered marijuana, cocaine, heroin, digital scales, and an operable firearm.
At a pretrial hearing, appellant moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the stop, contending the stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights because the manner by which the valid inspection sticker was affixed to the windshield did not give rise to a reasonable articulable

Page 3
suspicion that the sticker on the Ford was not validly on that car. Officer Bryan testified that he had stopped approximately 50 cars within the previous six months for improper inspection stickers and 30 to 35 of those vehicles possessed invalid inspection stickers. He explained the nature of those stops during cross-examination:

DEFENSE COUNSEL: So basically in your testimony, you said in the last six months you stopped approximately fifty cars and you said that thirty to thirty-five per cent of the cars had — the inspection stickers may have been from another vehicle? Is that what you're saying?
OFFICER BRYAN: No, sir. Thirty to thirty-five of the vehicles, out of the fifty, had bad inspection stickers.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: All right. That were valid or invalid?
OFFICER BRYAN: Invalid.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Now — so in other words, that would be sixty to seventy per cent of the cars?
OFFICER BRYAN: Approximately.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: And the other thirty — thirty to forty per cent had valid stickers. They had just — the glue had come loose?
OFFICER BRYAN: Yes, sir.

When asked how many vehicles he stopped during the past twelve to eighteen months, he responded that he "guess[ed] it would be a hundred vehicles" and that the "majority" of the stops turned out to be for inspection sticker related infractions.
The trial court overruled appellant's motion to suppress, finding that
the [inspection] sticker was peeling off, and the officer having had the experience that he had, would subjectively raise an appropriate suspicion in his mind, that this sticker could have been stolen or otherwise inappropriate.
Page 4
Appellant subsequently entered conditional pleas of guilty for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute and possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, preserving his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the investigatory stop.

II. ANALYSIS
Appellant asserts the investigatory stop violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure because it was "neither supported by probable cause that a traffic violation had occurred or reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot." Specifically, he contends Officer Bryan's observation that the vehicle's inspection sticker "was not totally affixed to the windshield" amounted to no more than a mere "hunch that there might be a problem with the vehicle['s] inspection sticker." Such a hunch, he argues, does not justify the stop of a motor vehicle. We agree.
"The Fourth Amendment prohibits `unreasonable searches and seizures' by the Government, and its protections extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest." United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968); United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981)). "Because the `balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security,' United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975), tilts in favor of a standard less than probable cause in such cases, the Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the officer's action is supported by reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity `may be afoot.'" Id. (citing United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)). Thus, "[a] police officer may conduct an investigatory stop of a motor vehicle if he has at least `articulable and reasonable suspicion' that the operator is unlicensed, the vehicle is unregistered, or the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violating the law." Reel v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 262, 265-66, 522 S.E.2d 881, 883 (2000) (citing Delaware v.

Page 5
Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663 (1979); Murphy v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 139, 143, 384 S.E.2d 125, 127 (1989)).
"Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is dependent upon both the content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability." Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990). "There are no bright line rules to follow when determining whether a reasonable and articulable suspicion exists to justify an investigatory stop." Reel, 31 Va. App. at 266, 522 S.E.2d at 883. Instead, courts "must look at the `totality of the circumstances' of each case to see whether the detaining officer ha[d] a `particularized and objective basis' for suspecting legal wrongdoing." Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273 (quoting Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417-18). While this standard "allows officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that `might well elude an untrained person,'" id. (quoting Cortez, 449 U.S. at 418), "[i]f the officer's suspicion amounts merely to an `inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch[,]" . . . [rather] than a fair inference in the light of his experience, [it] is simply too slender a reed to support the seizure' under the [F]ourth and [F]ourteenth [A]mendments of the United States Constitution." Murphy, 9 Va. App. at 144, 384 S.E.2d at 128 (quoting Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 436, 441 (1980)).
Here, Officer Bryan concedes he stopped appellant's vehicle solely because of his brief observation that a portion of the vehicle's otherwise valid inspection sticker was not completely affixed to the windshield.3 As part of its highway safety program, Virginia requires motor vehicles registered in the Commonwealth to be inspected annually for mechanical and equipment defects at an official inspection station. See Code §§ 46.2-1157, 46.2-1158. If no mechanical or equipment defects are discovered, the official inspection station must place an approval sticker

Page 6
on the windshield of the vehicle.4 Code § 46.2-1163. Failure to comply with the annual inspection requirement constitutes a traffic infraction. See Code §§ 46.2-1157, 46.2-1163. Additionally, it is unlawful to display an official state inspection sticker that was issued for another vehicle or is known to be counterfeit. Code § 46.2-1173.
In Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, the United States Supreme Court recognized the states' vital interest in ensuring that motor vehicles are fit for safe operation.5 However, it noted that "[t]he `grave danger' of abuse of discretion does not disappear simply because the automobile is subject to state regulation resulting in numerous instances of police-citizen contact." Id. at 662 (citations omitted). Thus, the Court held that the
marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure — limited in magnitude compared to other intrusions but nonetheless constitutionally cognizable — at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials. To insist neither upon an appropriate factual basis for suspicion directed at a particular automobile nor upon some other substantial and objective standard or rule to govern the exercise of discretion "would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches . . . ."

Page 7
Id. at 661 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 22) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court determined that because many violations of minimum vehicle-safety requirements are immediately observable, it is unnecessary to stop vehicles merely to ascertain compliance with a state's registration and vehicle-safety requirements. Id. at 660 (emphasis added).
Our holdings in Reel and Commonwealth v. Spencer, 21 Va. App. 156, 462 S.E.2d 899 (1995), illustrate the principles articulated in Prouse. In Reel, we concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, observation of a rejection sticker is sufficiently specific and objective to provide a reasonable and articulable suspicion of legal wrongdoing. 31 Va. App. at 268, 522 S.E.2d at 885. We reasoned that, "when an officer sees a vehicle being operated with a rejection sticker, he [immediately] knows the vehicle has been determined to have defective equipment, and this knowledge provides reasonable suspicion for the officer to conduct an investigatory stop to determine whether the defective equipment has been repaired." Id.
In Spencer, we held that "the lack of a city or county decal, without more, was insufficient to justify [an investigatory] stop of [a] vehicle." 21 Va. App. at 160, 462 S.E.2d at 901. There, we found that, because the officers knew other jurisdictions in the state did not require decals, the absence of a city or county decal, standing alone, did not constitute a specific and objective fact indicating that the vehicle was in violation of a local ordinance. We noted that, had the officers confirmed that the vehicle in question was registered in a jurisdiction requiring a decal prior to initiating the stop, the officers would have had a specific and objective basis for stopping the vehicle. We concluded, therefore, that the "benefit gained from stopping individual vehicles without decals is marginal when compared to the constitutional rights of drivers and their passengers who are seized." Id.
Similar to the officers in Reel and Spencer, Officer Bryan relied on a single factor to justify stopping appellant's vehicle — his brief observation of a partially peeling, but otherwise

Page 8
valid, inspection sticker. Unlike the rejection sticker in Reel, however, the appearance of appellant's partially peeling, but otherwise valid inspection sticker did not immediately identify the vehicle as being in violation of a vehicle-safety requirement or Code § 46.2-1173. Virginia's vehicle-safety regulations prescribe the location on the windshield inspection stickers must be affixed. However, we find no specifications in these regulations as to the manner in which such stickers must be attached. The only requirement is that the expiration date of the sticker must be clearly visible. Because the inspection sticker was lawful on its face, our holding in Spencer mandates that more information was required in order for Officer Bryan to formulate a particularized and objective suspicion that the sticker had been unlawfully transferred or was counterfeit in violation of Code § 46.2-1173.
Furthermore, Code § 46.2-1164 provides that a valid inspection sticker may be removed from a vehicle's broken windshield and reattached to the vehicle's new windshield without submitting the vehicle to re-inspection. This provision is also silent as to the means by which an inspection sticker is to be re-attached to a vehicle's new windshield. A logical consequence of such a legislatively sanctioned transfer is that the inspection sticker's glue may not fully affix to the new windshield, causing the sticker to appear to be "peeling" from the windshield.
Accordingly, because there is no requirement that an inspection sticker must be completely affixed to a vehicle's windshield, we conclude that a "peeling" inspection sticker is not, in and of itself, unlawful. Nor does it, standing alone, constitute a particularized and objective fact that gives rise to a reasonable articulable suspicion that the sticker has unlawfully been transferred from another vehicle or is otherwise counterfeit in violation of Code § 46.2-1173.
We recognize that "the mere fact that particular conduct may be susceptible of an innocent explanation does not [automatically] establish a lack of reasonable suspicion." United
Page 9
States v. Perkins, 363 F.3d 317, 326 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1056 (2005). See also Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 277 ("A determination that reasonable suspicion exists[] [] need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct." (citing Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125 (2000))). However, where particular conduct is, on its face, lawful or at least susceptible to a legitimate explanation, the Fourth Amendment requires the presence of additional factors that, under the totality of the circumstances, objectively point to legal wrongdoing. See Spencer, 21 Va. App. 156, 462 S.E.2d 899. See also Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (apparent Mexican ancestry of vehicle's occupants, standing alone, insufficient to furnish border patrol agent with a reasonable articulable suspicion that occupants were illegal aliens because "[l]arge numbers of native-born and naturalized citizens have the physical characteristics identified with Mexican ancestry").
In Brignoni-Ponce, the United States Supreme Court noted that there are "[a]ny number of factors [that] may be taken into account in deciding whether there is a reasonable suspicion to stop a car in the border area," including the fact that a person appears to be of Mexican ancestry. Id. at 885-86. However, it held that while "[t]he likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor, [] standing alone it does not justify stopping all Mexican-Americans to ask if they are aliens." Id. at 886 (emphasis added).
The same can be said of partially peeling inspection stickers. It is unquestionable that the "peeling" appearance of a valid inspection sticker is a relevant factor in determining whether the sticker was unlawfully transferred from another vehicle. However, because a partially peeling inspection sticker is not unlawful, it does not justify, without some additional indicia of legal wrongdoing, stopping all vehicles displaying valid inspections stickers that are not completely affixed to their windshields. Trial courts must consider the totality of all of the circumstances surrounding a stop of a vehicle, including whether a relevant factor may have a legitimate

Page 10
explanation, when determining whether an officer had a reasonable articulable suspicion, based on particularized and objective facts, to stop a vehicle.
In this case, Officer Bryan relied on a single factor to justify stopping appellant's vehicle — the vehicle's partially peeling, but otherwise valid, inspection sticker. He testified that he suspected appellant's partially peeling inspection sticker could belong to another car because he had stopped approximately 50 vehicles within the previous six months and approximately 30 to 35 of those vehicles had invalid, as opposed to valid and partially peeling, inspection stickers.6
After considering Officer Bryan's testimony, the trial court ruled that his experience with inspection sticker violations "subjectively raise[d] an appropriate suspicion in his mind[] that th[e] [peeling] sticker could have been stolen or otherwise inappropriate." In so doing, the trial court ignored the prescriptions of Spencer and Brignoni-Ponce that a single factor, lawful in and of itself, is insufficient to furnish reasonable articulable suspicion.7 Moreover, the record reflects

Page 11
that Officer Bryan's experience with both invalid and partially peeling, but otherwise valid, inspection stickers "did not attach with any particularity" to appellant's partially peeling, but otherwise valid inspection sticker or to appellant himself. Harris v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 407, 416, 551 S.E.2d 606, 611 (2001).8
Under the record presented to us in this case, Officer Bryan's observation of appellant's partially peeling inspection sticker, without more, amounted to nothing more than an inchoate and unparticularized "hunch" that the inspection sticker did not belong to appellant's vehicle. Such a "hunch" is too slender a reed to justify an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment. Murphy, 9 Va. App. at 144, 384 S.E.2d at 128. "Upholding a stop on these facts would permit [] [law enforcement] to make a random, suspicionless stop of any car with a [partially peeling inspection sticker]. The Fourth Amendment does not afford the police such unbridled discretion." United States v. Wilson, 205 F.3d 720, 724 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Prouse, 440 U.S. at 663).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress the evidence seized during the investigatory stop of his vehicle, and remand for further proceedings if the Commonwealth be so advised.
Reversed.
---------------
Notes:
1. The valid inspection sticker expired in June 2005, three and one-half months after the stop.
2. The statement of the trial court appearing in the text of the dissent came during the direct examination of Officer Bryan following an objection by defense counsel that the Commonwealth failed to establish a foundation for the line of questioning it was pursuing.
3. The officer testified at appellant's suppression hearing that he did not observe appellant committing a traffic infraction, or otherwise violating an equipment regulation.
4. The regulations governing the placement of inspection stickers provide that
the sticker is to be placed at the bottom of the windshield so that the inside or left edge of the sticker is one inch to the right of the vertical center of the windshield when looking through the windshield from the inside of the vehicle.
19 Va. Admin. Code § 30-70-50.
5. See Prouse, 440 U.S. at 658 ("We agree that the States have a vital interest in ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate motor vehicles, that these vehicles are fit for safe operation, and hence that licensing, registration, and vehicle inspection requirements are being observed. . . . Unquestionably, these provisions, properly administered, are essential elements in a highway safety program.").
6. We also note that the record contains no evidence of when, where, or under what circumstances Officer Bryan made these stops.
7. Our Supreme Court recently observed that it has
consistently declined to find that probable cause can be established solely on the observation of material which can be used for legitimate purposes, even though the experience of an officer indicates that such material is often used for illegitimate purposes. To support a finding of probable cause, such observations must be combined with some other circumstances indicating criminal activity.
Brown v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 414, 420-21, 620 S.E.2d 760, 763 (2005). There, the Court determined the trial court had erroneously denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence because, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, the investigating officer's observation of the defendant sleeping in a parked car with a hand-rolled cigarette in his hand was insufficient by itself to establish probable cause to arrest him for possession of marijuana.
Although reasonable suspicion imposes a less stringent requirement to effect a Fourth Amendment seizure than does probable cause, we find the principles articulated in Brown persuasive because both legal standards require reviewing courts to objectively consider the "totality of the circumstances." See Taylor v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 816, 820-21, 284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981) (whether probable cause exists depends upon "what the totality of the circumstances means to police officers trained in analyzing the observed conduct for purposes of crime control" (citations omitted)).
8. Even assuming, arguendo, that Officer Bryan was suspicious that the otherwise valid inspection sticker did not belong on the vehicle appellant was driving, surely that suspicion would have dissipated when, prior to initiating the traffic stop, he learned from his computer check that the vehicle was a validly licensed and registered rental car.
---------------

Page 12
McClanahan, J., dissenting.
I disagree that Officer Bryan had no "'particularized and objective basis' for suspecting legal wrongdoing" to justify the investigatory traffic stop. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2003). In my opinion, reasonable articulable suspicion was established by evidence of both the officer's observation of the peeling inspection sticker and "[his] own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about [that] information available to [him] that `might well elude an untrained person.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981)).
I do not read the applicable case law as holding that the presence or absence of reasonable articulable suspicion may be determined by counting the number of "factors" presented for justifying the stop. There are "no [such] bright line rules to follow" when making that determination. Reel v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 262, 266, 522 S.E.2d 881, 883 (2000). Nevertheless, Officer Bryan did not rely only on a single factor to justify stopping appellant's vehicle—the partially peeling inspection sticker. The officer also articulated in detail why he was suspicious based on his recent experience.9 See Logan v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 437, 442, 452 S.E.2d 364, 368 (1994) ("[W]e agree with the Commonwealth that if a broken window is suggestive of a prior theft, it is just as suggestive of what the officers suspected it might be in this case, a theft in progress."). Indeed, in light of that experience, it was more likely than not that the peeling inspection sticker was not lawfully attached to appellant's vehicle—the officer having found the same violation in 30 to 35 out of approximately 50 vehicles he had stopped in
Page 13
the previous six months.10 The officer's testimony on this issue does not pertain to something other than peeling stickers located on the wrong vehicles. The import of the officer's entire testimony, in context, was that he found such to be the case with each of those 30 to 35 vehicles. As the trial court explained,
what he's telling me is that [in the instant case] he felt it was a problem, because he had stopped many cars before, that have had stickers coming off, and in the majority of those he's found that the sticker didn't go to that car. So it goes to the issue of whether or not there's reasonable suspicion.11
(Emphasis added).

Page 14
In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the United States Supreme Court held a police officer's random traffic stop of a vehicle and detention of the driver for the sole purpose of checking his driver's license and vehicle registration, without first observing "any suspicious activity," whatsoever, was an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 650. In doing so, the Court recognized that licensing, registration, and vehicle inspection requirements "are essential elements in a highway safety program," through which a state may ensure that the drivers on its highways are qualified and that their vehicles are fit to operate. Id. at 658. The question, however, as framed by the Court, was "whether in the service of these important ends the discretionary spot check is a sufficiently productive mechanism to justify the intrusion upon Fourth Amendment interests which such stops entail." Id. at 659. Deciding it was not, the Court reasoned:
It seems common sense that the percentage of all drivers on the road who are driving without a license is very small and that the number of licensed drivers who will be stopped in order to find one unlicensed operator will be very large indeed. The contribution to highway safety made by discretionary stops selected from drivers generally will therefore be marginal at best.
Id. at 660-61. The Court thus concluded that, "[i]n terms of actually discovering unlicensed drivers or deterring them from driving, the [random, discretionary] spot check does not appear sufficiently productive to qualify as a reasonable law enforcement practice under the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 661.
In contrast, the stop in the instant case was particularized by the officer's observation of the peeling sticker on the windshield, and in light of his recent experience he was likely to discover an inspection sticker violation upon making the stop. Thus, the stop was not "random," "suspicionless" or an exercise in "unbridled discretion" in violation of appellant's Fourth Amendment rights.

Page 15
For these reasons, I would affirm the decision of the trial court denying appellant's motion to suppress. Therefore, I dissent.
---------------
Notes:
9. It is important to note that "an investigatory stop under Terry `anticipates that some innocent people may be stopped. Nevertheless, it is a lawful stop designed to permit an officer with reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to quickly confirm or dispel that suspicion." Davis v. Commonwealth, 35 Va. App. 533, 539, 546 S.E.2d 252, 255 (2001) (citing Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 126 (2000)); see Shiflett v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 141, 146, 622 S.E.2d 758, 760 (2005).
10. Given the likelihood that the stop would reveal unlawful activity, it certainly meets a reasonable articulable suspicion standard when it may very well meet a heightened probable cause standard. See, e.g., United States v. Limares, 269 F.3d 794, 798 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding that probable cause was clearly established when the record showed that the drug sniffing dog had been right sixty-two percent of the time); see generally, Ronald J. Bacigal, Making the Right Gamble: the Odds on Probable Cause, 74 Miss. L.J. 279, 313 (2004-05) (In analyzing the level of certainty required for probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, Professor Bacigal concludes that "statistical evidence is readily available in many cases and should be utilized whenever it exists.").
11. On direct examination, the officer testified that he was concerned when he saw the peeling inspection sticker on Moore's vehicle, thinking "it was possibly an improper inspection sticker, that did not belong on that car." That was because, "[b]ased on [his] experience, [he had] stopped numerous vehicles for this offense and found a great majority of the time that the inspection sticker, that will be peeling off the window, does not belong on that vehicle." (Emphasis added.) He proceeded to explain that in the previous six months, he had stopped approximately 50 vehicles for that type of violation and 30 to 35 "resulted in finding a sticker that was not supposed to be with the car [he] stopped." The officer further explained that "[a] new sticker typically does not peel off of a windshield on its own."
In the limited exchange on cross-examination addressing this issue, quoted by the majority, defense counsel misstates the officer's testimony on direct, when counsel asks, "So basically in your testimony, you said in the last six months you stopped approximately fifty cars and you said that thirty to thirty-five per cent of the cars had—the inspection stickers may have been from another vehicle? Is that what you're saying?" The officer responded, "No, sir. Thirt