 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Buchanon v. Commonwealth12/7/2001
VACATING AND REMANDING
David Buchanon entered a conditional plea of guilty to charges of first-degree possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), driving under the influence (DUI), possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, following a denial by the circuit court of Buchanon's motion to suppress evidence seized after a stop of his motor vehicle at a roadblock and a subsequent canine sniff.
The relevant facts in this case are largely undisputed. At approximately 6:30 p.m. on September 5, 1999, Buchanon was driving from Muhlenberg County to Butler County. Upon reaching the intersection of Kentucky highways 70 and 1117/369, Buchanon encountered a roadblock established by the Butler County Sheriff's Department.
At the roadblock, Buchanon was asked by Sheriff's Deputy Steve Morris for his license and registration. Morris testified that there was a strong smell of cologne emanating from the vehicle, and that Buchanon appeared to be acting nervously and had a red face and bloodshot eyes. Believing Buchanon to be driving under the influence of intoxicants, Morris ordered him to pull off the road. Morris then administered two field sobriety tests, the "walk and turn" and the "one leg stand." Buchanon passed the "walk and turn" test, and did not fail the "one leg stand" test despite appearing to be "unstable."
At this point, Morris asked for permission to search Buchanon's vehicle. When Buchanon refused, Morris called Deputy Scott McIntosh to bring a drug detection dog to sniff Buchanon's vehicle. The dog "alerted" on the passenger door, which then led the deputies to search the inside of the vehicle over Buchanon's objection. Inside the vehicle, the deputies found quantities of marijuana, methamphetamine and miscellaneous drug paraphernalia.
Having outlined the relevant facts, we must now turn to the legal questions presented in this appeal. Buchanon's argument is twofold. He asserts that both the roadblock and the canine sniff and subsequent search of the interior of his vehicle were violative of his constitutional rights. Because we find that the roadblock was constitutionally impermissible, we do not reach Buchanon's second argument.
Recently, the United States Supreme Court has held that roadblocks whose primary purpose is general crime control or to search for illegal drugs are impermissible under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. However, roadblocks designed to detect impaired drivers or to check for valid driver's licenses and vehicle registrations are permissible. Key to the analysis is whether there are adequate limits on the discretion of the individual officers conducting the roadblock. Therefore, the Supreme Court has stated that a policy of stopping all oncoming vehicles adequately constrains individual officer discretion in order to bring the roadblock into compliance with the Fourth Amendment.
Here, the Butler County Sheriff's Department was conducting a self-proclaimed "drug/DUI roadblock." It is noteworthy that this roadblock and, according to the testimony at trial, the majority of roadblocks conducted by the Butler County Sheriff, took place in the afternoon. While the Butler County Sheriff does not keep statistics on citations issued or arrests made at these roadblocks, the testimony at trial was that the only other citation or arrest arising from this particular roadblock was for possession of marijuana.
A review of the above factors reveals a striking similarity between the roadblock operated by the Butler County Sheriff and the roadblock operated by the Roane County, Tennessee, Sheriff which was found unconstitutional by
Page 1 2 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|