 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Baker v. State8/3/2001
kpoint program.
It follows that if a supervisor's testimony about an alleged "primary purpose" can be substantively disproved by other available evidence in contradiction, then the primary purpose of a roadblock can be substantively proved by other available evidence - with or without the supervisor's testimony. When the officers' understanding of a roadblock program and their conduct in effectuating that program demonstrate a constitutionally impermissible purpose for a roadblock detention, then the supervisor's primary purpose for the roadblock is irrelevant, as irrelevant as was the purpose articulated by the respondents in Ferguson. "Constitutional prerequisites" do not encompass irrelevant matters.
2. An officer's testimony that the purpose for a roadblock was to "check for DUI" is not hearsay. Such testimony is within the officer's personal knowledge as to a purpose he is effectuating at a roadblock. Such testimony need not go to a supervisor's purpose for the roadblock since, as discussed in Division 1, the supervisor's purpose is irrelevant if the effect of the roadblock, i.e., the field officer's conduct in applying and implementing the roadblock program, demonstrates a constitutionally impermissible purpose.
Further, the officer's testimony regarding the purpose for the roadblock is not hearsay any more than is an officer's testimony that the decision to implement the roadblock was made by supervisory personnel. Both pieces of information are within the collective knowledge of the officers who were called to the scene by their supervisor and ordered to work the roadblock and detain vehicles pursuant thereto. The "collective knowledge" rule is applicable to factual situations where the collective knowledge of law enforcement officers has been relayed to and used by officers actually making or implementing a detention or seizure. In this case, Baker conceded that the roadblock was properly implemented by a watch supervisor: "I'll concede that the State has satisfied that the roadblock was implemented by supervisory personnel, even though Officer Wright couldn't remember who." Officer Wright was summoned to the roadblock by that supervisor: "My supervisor comes over the radio, gives his radio unit, have the following units meet with him at a certain location for a roadblock." The supervisor was present throughout the roadblock, and Officer Wright testified that the purpose of the roadblock was
to detect the low level DUI as far as the actual type of a DUI person on the road that not everybody else is going to see, as far as the people that's - the low level type of people, where the average officer out on the side of the road could be behind him and not exactly detect him from the way he's driving, but actually still be considered a less safe driver.
There is no hearsay issue with regard to Officer Wright's personal knowledge of the purpose of a roadblock he was executing under orders from his supervisor. Wright was the one actually effectuating the purpose.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Andrews joins in this dissent.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|