 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Gates3/1/2005
s required every vehicle be detained briefly. He also described the checkpoint in detail; including the fact it was more than a sufficient distance from several possible turn-around locations. The officer's vehicles were stationary with lights flashing. Finally, officers placed warning signs along the road allowing more than sufficient warning to alert drivers of the upcoming checkpoint.
While the questions asked of the drivers may have varied based upon which officer was conducting the stop, Lt. Jenkins testified all stops were "reasonably brief" pursuant to the plan established. Additionally, each officer conducted their own tests if they felt a driver might be intoxicated. Deputy Vinesett conducted Gates' test and detailed his process. He explained Gates' failure of each of the tests. The stop was neither unreasonable, nor left to the "unbridled discretion" of the officers as in Prouse. Prouse, 440 U.S. at 663. Neither Sitz, Prouse, nor Edmond require the specific questions or actions performed by the officers after the stop to be pursuant to written guidelines or be in complete concert with one another.
CONCLUSION
We find the checkpoint was established for the legitimate purpose of decreasing DUI and speeding in an area specifically targeted because of prior incidents. The checkpoint was operated pursuant to guidelines, which took into consideration all of the concerns expressed by the United States Supreme Court in Prouse and Sitz. The checkpoint did not entail random stops, nor were drivers detained for an unreasonable amount of time. Drivers were warned of the approaching checkpoint and afforded the opportunity to turn around.
We do not find the differences among the officers as to their questions or specific actions after the stop to be an unreasonable intrusion into the occupant's privacy. Additionally, we find the officers did not have "unbridled discretion," nor did they have "standardless and unconstrained discretion" in making the stops. Accordingly, we find the checkpoint utilized to stop and detain Gates was appropriate and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Gates conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
|