Chief Justice John Roberts lets us all know where he stands on the issue of DWI / Drunk Driving

The Supreme Court refused to hear a drunk driving case from Virginia.  Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissent to the decision not to hear the DWI case in which he says the lower court ruling will "grant drunk drivers one free swerve" that could potentially end someone's life.

In the underlying DWI case, the defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated.  The evidence at trial was the driver was pulled over after a motorist called in a drunk driver.  The officer did not personally observe any traffic violation before stopping the driver.  The case was appealed to the highest court in Virginia and was ultimately overturned because of the stop.

In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts goes on to say,

The stakes are high. The effect of the rule below will be to grant drunk drivers 'one free swerve' before they can be legally pulled over by police.  It will be difficult for an officer to explain to the family of a motorist killed by that swerve that the police had a tip that the driver of the other car was drunk, but that they were powerless to pull him over, even for a quick check.

Isn't this exactly what is required for a valid stop.  The officer must state with particularity the reason for the stop - the observations he/she has made prior to pulling someone over.  The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects each and every one of us from unreasonable searches and seizures.  Chief Justice Roberts - BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO DWI / DRUNK DRIVING CASES ALSO. 

It seems like people, even Supreme Court Justices, don't think the United States Constitution should apply to driving while intoxicated cases.  I guess I am just a strict constructionist that believes the Constitution should apply equally to all cases.  If the police don't follow the rules, the evidence is no good.