Mobile Website | Login | Register
Staff Directory | Subscribe | About Us
Business Government Politics Region Crime/Public Safety Education People E-edition Ashburn Hamilton Hillsboro Lansdowne Leesburg Lovettsville Middleburg Purcellville River Creek Round Hill Sterling
Basketball Football Youth Wrestling Gymnastics Swimming Volleyball Baseball Track Golf Cheer Cross Country Schedule Scores
Brambleton Community of Faith Hangin in the Nosebleeds Journal Entry Loudoun Essence Made in Loudoun Odd Angles River Creek & Lansdowne South Riding Sterling, Cascades & CountrySide
This Week's Slideshow Browse All Galleries Your Best Dish Featured Video The Virginians
  • Announcements
  • Autos
  • Jobs
  • Legals
  • Homes
  • YardSales
  • Submit an Ad
  • Newspaper Advertising Online Advertising
    Classified listings Homes section

    Court of Appeals upholds Loudoun ‘hindering’ conviction

    Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals in Virginia Walter S. Felton has affirmed the August 2013 conviction of Loudoun woman Dre Martina Roberts for hindering a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties.

    The case stemmed from a domestic violence complaint in Sterling in February 2013.

    According to the Loudoun Commonwealth's Attorney Office, deputies responded to Roberts' Sterling residence to investigate a complaint of domestic violence. Once the officers arrived, Roberts refused to provide deputies with identification and shouted obscenities at them, demanding they get out of her house. When deputies asked Roberts to confirm she understood what they were asking by providing a yes or no answer, Roberts just responded “yes or no answer.”

    She was subsequently placed under arrest for hindering a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties, a violation of Loudoun County Ordinance 654.09.

    An attorney for Roberts filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals of Virginia challenging Roberts’ criminal conviction. The attorney asserted the county ordinance does not define “hinder.” Attorneys for Roberts further argued that a suspect who fails to cooperate fully with a law enforcement officer or behaves in a way that makes the officer’s task more difficult does not hinder that officer from performing the task.

    How hindering should be construed and the sufficiency of the evidence regarding whether Roberts’ conduct constituted hindering were the primary topics of oral arguments, according to the commonwealth's attorney office.

    "The trial court found that appellant hindered Deputy Van Brocklin’s investigation of a domestic assault complaint by engaging in a continuing course of conduct that included: ordering him to leave the home, refusing to provide her state-issued identification to him, and providing nonresponsive answers or refusing to acknowledge his inquiries," the judge's opinion states. "The trial court stated, 'When you are required to investigate a domestic dispute, identification is crucial. Refusing to answer the questions, refusing to identify yourself, and telling somebody ... get out of my house with an attitude is clearly hindering that investigation.”

    Commented Loudoun Commonwealth's Attorney Jim Plowman (R) in a prepared statement, “This is not only a significant win for Loudoun County, but for all local jurisdictions that wish to tighten the laws to prevent people from interfering in a law enforcement investigation. Further, it reinforces the position that local jurisdictions will take the necessary steps to aide and protect those that help keep our communities safe.”

    The affirmation of the conviction means that Roberts must pay the $2,500 fine imposed by Judge Benjamin N. A. Kendrick on Aug. 1, 2013, along with any court costs associated with the case unless further appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court. The decision also means that Roberts’ conviction will remain on her criminal record and that the validity of the Loudoun County Ordinance is supported as it relates to the specific issues presented.

    Comments

    Loudoun citizens have finally become serfs to the king. No matter how unlawful the police command, no matter how far outside the official police duties or how intrusive the police decide to be, the citizens can be charged with a crime of hindering simply for refusing to obey every ridiculous or unlawful command by the police. This is includes filming the actions of the police or refusing to turn over your phone after you have filmed the police violating the law. Even walking down the street or walking on your own property can be turned into a crime, by refusing to provide ID, refusing an unlawful search or even refusing to turn over private property to the police who were trying to “preserve” the peace.


    This person had a right to remain silent, but not the ability.  It’s better to let people think you’re a fool, rather than open your mouth & prove it.


    There goes our civil rights. All civil rights “hinder” a police state.

    Get Our Headlines Via Email
    Tuesdays:  
    Thursdays:

    StayConnected

    Follow Us
    on Twitter

    News | Sports

    Like Us
    on Facebook

    News & Sports

    Join Our
    Email List

    Sign up for
    weekly updates
    The Loudoun Times-Mirror

    is an interactive, digital replica
    of the printed newspaper.
    Open the e-edition now.

    Loudoun Business Journal - Summer 2014

    Loudoun Business Journal - Spring 2014