 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Boyce v. State10/18/1999
After his conviction of the offenses of DUI and driving with a revoked license, Glenn Lee Boyce brings this appeal. In his sole enumeration of error, he contends that he was stopped at an illegal roadblock, and that the trial court therefore erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence of his intoxication. We do not agree.
The issue of whether roadblocks in general are permissible in this state under the United States and Georgia Constitutions was settled with the decisions of the Georgia Supreme Court in LaFontaine v. State, 269 Ga. 251 (497 SE2d 367) (1998) and Brent v. State, 270 Ga. 160 (510 SE2d 14) (1998).
In examining the propriety of roadblock stops, the issue for resolution is not whether there was probable cause to stop the vehicle, but whether the roadblock stop was otherwise implemented and conducted in a manner as to demonstrate that the stop of the vehicle was "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444, 450 (110 SC 2481, 110 LE2d 412) (1990). See Christopher v. State, 202 Ga. App. 40 (1) (413 SE2d 236) (1991). LaFontaine, supra at 252 (3).
Boyce argues, however, that the factors set forth in Sitz and introduced into Georgia law in State v. Golden, 171 Ga. App. 27 (318 SE2d 693) (1984), must be met.
A roadblock is satisfactory where the decision to implement the roadblock was made by supervisory personnel rather than the officers in the field; all vehicles are stopped as opposed to random vehicle stops; the delay to motorists is minimal; the roadblock operation is well identified as a police checkpoint; and the "screening" officer's training and experience is sufficient to qualify him to make an initial determination as to which motorists should be given field tests for intoxication. (Citation omitted.) LaFontaine, supra at 253 (3).
Boyce argues that the roadblock at which he was stopped did not meet at least two of the criteria because the decision to implement the roadblock was made by officers in the field, and at least at times, not all vehicles were stopped. We do not agree.
In Golden, supra at 29 (2), and Evans v. State, 190 Ga. App. 856 (380 SE2d 332) (1989),
we addressed several factors in determining whether the roadblocks which were there in issue were "reasonable" and constitutional. However, neither Evans nor Golden establishes absolute criteria which must be satisfied before a roadblock is legitimate. Indeed, in Evans, this court looked at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the roadblock to decide whether the factors in Golden were satisfied. (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Christopher, supra at 42. The totality of the circumstances must show that the roadblock is not being used as a pretext to detain citizens in order to search their cars. LaFontaine, supra at 253 (3). And when viewing the totality of the circumstances, we must keep in mind that the relevant inquiry is whether the evidence shows that it was, in fact, a pretext to stop this driver, rather than a legitimate law enforcement technique. Christopher, supra at 42 (1). Looking at the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that here, as in Christopher and LaFontaine, the roadblock was not a pretext and was reasonable.
Boyce correctly points out that the officer who stopped him testified that he and two other Georgia state troopers made the decision to set up the roadblock, that no supervisory personnel were involved, and that his superior officers were not even working that day. But the officer also testified that under established Georgia State Patrol policy, officers had authority to decide to implement a daytime roadblock so lo
Page 1 2 3 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|