 |
|
Image
Source: Vermont Public Radio (http://www.vpr.net/news
_detail/93786/stuck-in-mud-how-are-roads-your-town/,
last accessed
February
6, 2013).
|
Sound
strange? Well, as summarized in the Burlington
Free Press, the question arose when a motorist was arrested for negligent
operation and prosecutors claimed that the sheriff’s deputy had probable cause
to arrest him because
of his “negligent operation” in driving over a washed-out portion of dirt road.
The
sheriff’s deputy originally spotted the motorist driving 65mph in a 55mph zone
and then followed him down an unpaved private driveway. The motorist then drove
at about 25mph over a washed-out section of the road and bottomed-out his car.
This, prosecutors argued, was probable cause to arrest him for negligent
operation.
The Vermont
Supreme Court disagreed. Referring to “common experience,” the court ruled that
as a matter of law it was not negligent to drive over the wash-out and
therefore there was no probable cause for the arrest. In fact, the court stated
“[u]npaved roads, including driveways, are commonplace throughout Vermont …
[t]o deliberately travel over such roads is a reality of Vermont life, not a
rash decision.”
Discussing
the court’s decision, the article quotes Vermont Law School professor Cheryl
Hanna who said the court has essentially created a “bad-road defense” and
navigating poor roads with potholes, wash-outs, or ruts does not give police
probable cause to pull over motorists for negligent operation. Thus, a defense
attorney could argue that weaving in a road was due to deep ruts or to avoid
pot holes — not because the driver was intoxicated.
