 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Colbert10/16/2001
Appeal by the State from judgment entered 11 January 2000 by Judge Narley L. Cashwell in Granville County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 May 2001.
The State appeals the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during an impaired driving checkpoint stop. The trial court ruled that the checkpoint did not comply with N.C.G.S. § 20-16.3A(2) (1999) in that the agency conducting the check failed to designate in advance a pattern for requesting drivers to submit to alcohol screening tests. We disagree and reverse the trial court.
On 6 July 1998, the Senior Public Safety Officer of the Butner Public Safety Department sent a letter to several law enforcement agencies requesting their participation in an impaired driving checkpoint operation scheduled for 18 July 1998. The letter requested the participation of eight organizations including: Butner Public Safety personnel, the Granville County Sheriff's Office, the North Carolina Highway Patrol, the Oxford Police Department, and the Creedmoor Police Department, to name a few. Attached to the letter was a memorandum from Rufus Sales (Sales), Chief of Butner Public Safety Department, setting forth the guidelines for carrying out this operation (hereinafter, Butner Plan). According to the memorandum, on 18 July 1998, two impaired driving checkpoints would be set up, one on Highway 56 and the other in another location. Each site would have a Breath Alcohol Testing Mobile Unit.
On 18 July 1998, defendant, while traveling on Highway 56, approached one of the impaired driving checkpoints set up pursuant to the 6 July 1998 letter and was stopped by Sergeant Rose of the North Carolina Highway Patrol. Sergeant Rose performed the following screening of the defendant: (1) requested defendant to produce his driver's license, (2) observed the defendant's eyes for signs of impairment, (3) engaged the defendant in conversation to determine if the defendant had the odor of alcohol on his breath or if his speech pattern indicated impairment, and (4) observed the defendant's clothing. Following these initial observations, Sergeant Rose instructed Trooper McMillan, who had also observed the defendant operate the vehicle, to take the defendant for further alcohol screening. Trooper McMillan conducted an alco-sensor test on the defendant. Based on the results of the test, Trooper McMillan placed the defendant under arrest for impaired driving and cited him for other driving violations. Sergeant Rose did not participate in the administration of the alco-sensor test or arrest.
On 9 November 1999, defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop. A hearing on the motion to suppress took place in Superior Court in Granville County on 3 March 2000. The trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress. The court concluded that the agency failed to designate in advance the pattern for requesting drivers that are stopped to submit to alcohol screening tests which was required by G.S. § 20-16.3A(2).
I.
The State first assigns as error the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress on a ground other than the grounds specifically raised by defendant in his motion. The State argues that the issue of "whether the checkpoint complied with N.C.G.S. § 20-16.3A(2) was not raised in defendant's motion to suppress and is therefore barred on appellate review." We disagree.
The standards governing motions to suppress are set forth in Chapter 15A of the North Carolina General Statutes. There are two provisions which are relevant to this discussion. First, N.C.G.S. § 15A-977(a) (1999) provides that " he motion to suppress must state the groun
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|