 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STONE v. STATE5/10/1996
sobriety checkpoint stop. The Brown test requires the court to weigh the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty. Here, the public interest in detecting drunk drivers was very great, and the troopers' roadblock advanced that public interest, particularly on a holiday weekend. Moreover, the intrusion on the privacy of the drivers who were stopped was minimal.
In addition to approving the Brown test, the Court in Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, supra, discussed the importance of written guidelines setting forth the procedures governing checkpoint operations which leave little discretion to those conducting a checkpoint or roadblock. Although there
were no written guidelines in place at the time of the appellant's seizure, the methods used by the troopers clearly limited their discretion. From the time the roadblock was established until it ended, all approaching vehicles were checked in the same manner, in accordance with the troopers' training and appropriate safety precautions. No random inspections were made. Based on the record, the trial court properly determined that the roadblock in this case was reasonable. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
All Judges concur, except TAYLOR, P.J., who adheres to original dissent.
I dissent from the majority's opinion remanding this case for the trial court to make a factual determination as to the reasonableness of the roadblock. The judgment in this case should be reversed and a judgment rendered for the defendant. The purpose of the remand, the majority says, is to give the state another opportunity to come up with reasons why this roadblock meets the stringent requirements set up by the United States Supreme Court. See Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990). Both the state and the defendant have already stipulated to the following facts which the court accepted:
"The only written guidelines or procedures adopted by the Department of Public Safety at the time concerning the roadblock operations, site selection, safety, and publicity was a manual carried by each Trooper that required Troopers to call a supervisor to approve the location of the roadblock. No written guidelines existed governing checkpoint operation, duration, and publicity and these procedures are left to the discretion of the officers in the field."
(Emphasis added.)
This issue should be decided based on the facts of the case and not on some future revisionist version of these facts.
TAYLOR, Presiding Judge, dissenting.
|