 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas v. State12/5/2005
I Task Force for the City of Atlanta, and there evidence of an explicit authorization from the chief of police for the officer to implement roadblocks. See Perdue, supra at 766 (1) (a). We do not hold that an authorizing supervisor may never be present or participate to any extent in a roadblock. However, here, there is no evidence that Corporal Miller was delegated any specialized programmatic authority (as was the head of the DUI Task Force) consistent with the purpose of the roadblock, or that he was explicitly authorized to implement roadblocks, or that any formal plan or policy was in place which did so. The actions of Corporal Miller and the other field officers at the scene are not competent evidence of purpose at the "programmatic level" under the facts of this case. See Baker, supra at 701 (1).
Similarly, this case is distinct from Hobbs, supra at 117 (1), in which we affirmed the legality of a roadblock where the supervising officer who authorized the roadblock ultimately stopped the defendant at the roadblock, because the supervising officer testified that "he goes to the location to supervise the other officers and that he takes no direct role unless the other officers are tied up with other motorists." Here, by contrast, there was no such evidence, Corporal Miller authorized the roadblock from the field immediately prior to implementing it, and it appears from the record that Corporal Miller actively participated in all aspects of the roadblock as did the other field officers.
Based on the record before us, it is clear that Corporal Miller, a patrol officer supervising his shift, made the decision spontaneously in the field, without involvement of any other higher authority, and absent reliance on any specific authority or department policy for implementing roadblocks. " n the absence of record evidence that the decision to establish the roadblock was made by anyone other than the officers in the field, the roadblock in question has certain characteristics of a roving patrol, namely, an appreciable risk of arbitrary basis for [the roadblock] decision." Lafontaine, supra at 257. Therefore, based on the particular facts of this case, the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress. We reverse the trial court's order denying Thomas's motion to suppress. In light of our holding here, we need not reach Thomas's other enumerations of error.
Judgment reversed. Miller and Bernes, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|