 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Com. v. Pearson6/25/2004
The facts of this case are not in dispute. Early in the morning of July 6, 2003, Jed Williams Pearson ("Defendant") was stopped on Ivy Road by a roadblock conducted by the Albemarle County Police. The roadblock was a sobriety checkpoint established under Albemarle County Police Department General Order No. 4-6, Subject: Traffic/Sobriety Checkpoints, effective September 28, 2001. (Comm .Ex. 1) (the "Albemarle Plan"). Defendant was stopped and questioned at the checkpoint by Officer T.A. Rourke, who arrested him for driving under the influence.
In January 2003, six months prior to Defendant's arrest, Corporal G.D. Fink was designated by the Field Operations Bureau Captain to select six sites from a list of fourteen sites approved as sobriety checkpoints. Corporal Fink chose six sites to be activated on certain nights throughout the year. He was also the checkpoint supervisor on the night of July 5-6, 2003 at the Ivy Road location.
The Albemarle Plan allows the Field Operations Bureau Captain to designate an individual to select sites and dates for sobriety checkpoints. (Albemarle Plan III(A)(1)(a)). There are no restrictions on the identity or rank of this designee. Id. Once the sites are selected, they are forwarded to the officers who will serve as checkpoint supervisors. (Albemarle Plan III(A)(1)(c)). There are no restrictions on the identity or rank of the checkpoint supervisor. Id. The Albemarle Plan provides that checkpoints will be operated for no less than 30 minutes under normal conditions. (Id. at III(E)(1)). It does not set forth an upper time limit. The Albemarle Plan gives the checkpoint supervisor the discretion to move the checkpoint to a pre-designated alternative site or alternative date when the circumstances so require. (Id. at III(A)(3)). Circumstances may include hazardous road conditions, changes in traffic flow, weather-related problems, and insufficient staffing. Id. Should the supervisor choose to relocate the site, the Safety-Sobriety Checkpoint Activity Report must reflect the reason for the move. Id.
ISSUE
Whether the Albemarle Plan appropriately delineates the limits of police discretion in operating the checkpoint such that the stop of the Defendant was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
ANALYSIS
*2 Any analysis of the constitutional validity of a plan for conducting a sobriety checkpoint must focus on the degree of police discretion allowed. It is well established in Virginia that "to ensure that an individual's expectation of privacy is not subjected to arbitrary invasion solely at the unfettered discretion of police officers in the field, seizures at roadblocks must be carried out pursuant to plans embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of the individual officer." Brown v. Commonwealth, 20 Va.App. 21, 24 (1995) (quoting Hall v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 972, 973 (1991)); see Simmons v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 200, 202-03 (1989); Crandol v. City of Newport News, 238 Va. 697 (1989).
The Virginia Supreme Court has evaluated the constitutionality of the City of Charlottesville's Procedural Manual: Charlottesville Driver's License and Sobriety Checkpoint Program. (Def. Ex. 1, Lowe v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 346 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1084 (1986)) (the "Charlottesville Plan"). Reviewing the United States Supreme Court cases Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), and Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), the Virginia Supreme Court adopted the Brown v. Texas balancing test in Lowe v. Commonwealth:
"Balancing the State's strong interest in protecting the public from the grave risk presented by drunk drivers, against the minimal inconvenience caused motorists approaching the roadblock, we hold that the action of the police in this case was not an impermissible infringement u
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Virginia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|