 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jones v. State11/28/2001
roadblock." Id. at 211. In Rinaldo,
he guidelines established specific duties and procedures to be followed by officers participating in the roadblock.
The pointman's job was to count and direct vehicles into the interview area in a non-discretionary sequence, as provided in the written guidelines, and as determined by Sergeant Saredy, depending on traffic conditions. The uniformed officers were briefed prior to the checkpoint and provided with a suggested script for questioning the drivers stopped in the roadblock. Once a vehicle was directed into the interview area, the officers were to briefly detain the driver to identify themselves, explain the purpose of the roadblock, and request a driver's license and registration. They were to also observe the driver and check for signs of impairment, and if no impairment was detected, allow the driver to continue on his or her way. If it appeared to the officer that a driver was under the influence of alcohol, he was to direct the driver to an interview area for further DUI investigation. Id. at 211-12.
This court found that the written instructions, "which focused on procedures to be followed during the initial stop and detention of motorists, were clear and reasonable and did not permit random or arbitrary vehicle stops or allow officers to discriminately target particular persons." Id. at 212.
Unlike the guidelines in Rinaldo, the written operational guidelines in the instant case fail to meet the requirements set forth in Campbell and Jones. Although the guidelines addressed the important issue of which vehicles would initially be stopped (all), they did not address which cars would be checked for narcotics or the procedures to be used. The pre-roadblock, oral briefing made it clear that the detection of illegal drugs was to be an integral part of this roadblock. The written guidelines, however, neither mentioned nor addressed the presence or duties of the narcotics officers. The failure of the written guidelines to address this aspect of the inspection left the crucial decisions of which drivers would be questioned about drugs and how they would be questioned solely to the discretion of the officers on the scene. The testimony was undisputed that not all drivers were asked about narcotics because of the limited availability of officers. Although the officers and agents were briefed orally about the detention techniques, oral guidelines are not sufficient. See Hartsfield v. State, 629 So. 2d 1020, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In addition, a general operating procedure contained in a standard operational order cannot be substituted for the detailed, written guidelines for a particular roadblock. See Campbell, 679 So. 2d at 1171-72.
In the instant case, when viewed as a whole, the written guidelines were insufficient and failed to set forth with reasonable specificity the procedures to be employed at the inspection. Accordingly, the order on appeal denying the motion to suppress is reversed.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
STONE, J., and CLARK, NIKKI ANN, Associate Judge, concur.
|