Federal Judiciary

No Trial for Drunk Driver Snared During DWI Contest

By Robert Loblaw

Sherbrooke v. City of Pelican Rapids, 06-4072 (8^th Cir., Jan. 17, 2008)

Here is an interesting Fourth Amendment decision from the Eighth Circuit. Plaintiff David Sherbrooke had a few drinks too many at his high school reunion in Pelican Rapids, Minnesota. On his way home, Sherbrooke claims that he pulled over on the highway to make a phone call, activating his hazard lights. He then got back on the highway and turned off his hazards once he had reached the speed limit.

Unfortunately for Sherbrooke, there was a police car stopped about 1,000 yards up the road from where he had stopped. Its occupant, Officer Scott Sachs, saw Sherbrooke turning off his hazards as he approached the police car, and felt that this behavior was suspicious. Sachs may have also been motivated by a contest among the Pelican Rapids police officers to see who could arrest the most drunk drivers that weekend. At any rate, Sachs pulled Sherbrooke over and arrested him for DWI. Testing showed that Sherbrooke was over the legal limit, but charges against him were eventually dropped due to questions about the accuracy of the test.

Instead of facing criminal charges, Sherbrooke brought civil charges against the officers involved in his stop and arrest, claiming that they had violated his constitutional rights. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment on most claims, but it allowed Sherbrooke?s Fourth Amendment claim against Sachs to proceed so that a jury could resolve whether Sachs had reasonable suspicion to stop Sherbrooke.

On appeal, a divided panel of the Eighth Circuit reverses this aspect of the district court?s decision. The majority concludes that Sachs is entitled to qualified immunity, explaining that Sachs had reasonable suspicion to stop Sherbrooke based on his use of the hazard lights, which was not authorized by law. Judge Beam strenuously dissents, arguing that under Sherbrooke?s version of the facts, he had violated no laws and had instead acted as a reasonable and prudent driver by alerting other drivers that he was traveling below the speed limit. He concludes that a jury should decide whether Sachs was motivated by reasonable suspicion or by a desire to win the DWI contest.

Full post as published by Decision of the Day on January 17, 2008 (boomark / email).