 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Las Cruces v. Betancourt3/5/1987
--REF-->541 P.2d 971 (1975); State v. Ruud, 90 N.M. 647, 567 P.2d 496 (Ct. App.1977). In State v. Bidegain, no question of the validity of the stop was presented; therefore, the supreme court treated it as lawful. The supreme court in State v. Bloom simply held such stops are lawfully authorized pursuant to statutory authority. The supreme court was not called upon to consider the constitutional implications. In the same year that State v. Bloom was decided, this court did have occasion to examine the constitutionality of routine checks for license and vehicle registration. In State v. Ruud, we said that notwithstanding the statutory authority, such stops must comply with the constitutional requirements of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. While holding invalid stops based on random selection of motorists, we recognized the validity of "routine roadblock set up in good faith to check registration certificates and driver's licenses." Id. 90 N.M. at 650, 567 P.2d at 499 (citation omitted).
All three of the cases just discussed were decided before Delaware v. Prouse. Because we discern no real difference between roadblocks to check for licenses and vehicle registration and roadblocks to check for sobriety, what we decide today simply adds to State v. Rudd the standard for determining the validity of roadblocks and guidelines useful in testing that standard. We take this opportunity to present eight guidelines what will be considered in determining the reasonableness of a roadblock. See Ingersoll. We would emphasize that we do not foreclose consideration of other relevant factors where appropriate and we hold that no one guideline is necessarily dispositive of the issue, so long as there is evidence to ensure that an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is not subject to arbitrary invasion solely at the unfettered discretion of officers in the field. Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 99 S. Ct. 2637, 61 L. Ed. 2d 357, (1979). See Delaware v. Prouse; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte.
1. Role of supervisory personnel.
We agree with the Ingersoll court that the decision to set up a sobriety roadblock, the selection of the site and procedures for conducting it must be made and established by supervisory law enforcement personnel rather than officers in the field. Ideally, roadblock decisions should be made by the chief of police or other high-ranking supervisory officials. See Little v. State, 300 Md. App. 485, 479 A.2d 903 (1984). This is essential to reduce the possibility of improper, unbridled discretion of the officers who meet and deal with the motoring public.
2. Restrictions no discretion of field officers.
For a valid roadblock, it is important that the discretion of field officers be restricted. {PA}
Page 659} Ingersoll. Automobiles should not be stopped randomly. it would proper to stop every automobile. Alternatively, the procedural plan may properly include a mathematical selection formula, stopping, for example, every third automobile. Unrestricted discretion in determining which vehicle to stop leads to the evil we seek to avoid. it is also wise to instruct officers orally in writing on uniform procedures to be utilized when stopping motorists. As nearly as possible, each motorist should be dealt with in precisely the same manner.
3. Safety.
The safety of the motoring public and the field officer should also be given proper consideration. Here, we look to safety measures aimed at warning approaching traffic, the degree to which the roadblock causes traffic congestion and whet
Page 1 2 3 4 5 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|