 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Barnes7/2/1996
tion in the troopers' actions, and we overrule this assignment of error.
Sanders, 112 N.C. App. at 480, 435 S.E.2d at 844.
Similarly, in the present case, the court found that on 5 September 1993, Sergeant Bullock, acting shift supervisor, decided to organize a checking station, taking into consideration the likelihood of detecting persons who were violating the motor vehicle laws, the traffic conditions, the volume of traffic that would pass through the checking station, and the convenience of the public. The officers intended to stop all vehicles that approached the checking station from either direction to detect driver's license and registration violations as well as other motor vehicle violations including driving while impaired.
Following Bullock's decision, a checking station was established on Oak Grove Road at approximately 12:45 a.m. taking into account that there is a higher incidence of impaired driving on the weekend, particularly during the early morning hours. Bullock's unmarked patrol vehicle was parked in the paved median dividing the lanes of Oak Grove Road and another unmarked patrol vehicle was parked on the shoulder of Oak Grove Road. At least one of the vehicles had its blue lights on in accordance with Directive 63.
Defendant drove his vehicle to the checking station where he was stopped and asked to produce his driver's license and registration. Bullock noticed that defendant's eyes were glassy and bloodshot and he detected the odor of alcohol. When asked how much he had to drink, defendant responded, "none." Thereafter, another officer took over the investigation and defendant was later charged with driving while impaired. There is no evidence or finding that the checking station was not noticeable, resulted in any unusual delay for defendant or other motorists, created any unsafe condition(s) or was otherwise unreasonable.
Upon careful review of the evidence, we find that the court's findings do not support its Conclusion that the checking station was not conducted in accordance with required guidelines. Instead, the findings show that there was substantial compliance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-16.3A and Directive 63. Accordingly, we find no fourth amendment violation and we reverse the trial court's order granting defendant's motion to suppress.
Reversed.
Judges GREENE and MARTIN, JOHN C. concur.
|