Transcript 2005-city-winter-Farb-checkpoints

The Fourth Amendment
• Protects the people’s right to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures
• Requires that warrants to search places and to
seize people and things must be supported by
probable cause and must be issued on information
given under oath or affirmation
California v. Hodari D.,
499 U.S. 621 (1991)
• Definition of seizure
– Applying actual physical force to suspect, or
– Suspect submitting to officer’s “show of
authority”
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)
• Random stop of car on highway for license or
registration check
• Fourth Amendment balancing test:
– Law enforcement practice is judged by
balancing
• Intrusion on person’s privacy interest, versus
• Promotion of legitimate governmental
interests
• Discretionary license check is insufficiently
productive to justify intrusion on privacy interests
• Court appears to approve roadblock-type license
checks and truck weigh station inspections
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz,
496 U.S. 444 (1990)
• DWI checkpoint is reasonable under Fourth
Amendment
• Balancing test
– State’s interest in preventing drunk driving
– Extent to which checkpoint reasonably
advances that interest
– Outweighs degree of intrusion on motorists
who are briefly stopped
• G.S. 20-16.3A: DWI checkpoint requirements
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32
(2000)
• Checkpoint whose primary purpose is to detect
illegal drugs is unconstitutional
• Court did not decide
– Is it constitutional for license or DWI
checkpoint to have as secondary purpose the
detection of illegal drugs?
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32
(2000)
• United States v. Davis, 270 F.3d 977 (D.C. Cir.
2001): court indicates that drug enforcement as
secondary purpose is constitutional
• United States v. Moreno-Vargas, 315 F.3d 489 (5th
Cir. 2002)
– fixed checkpoint whose primary purpose was to
investigate illegal immigration
– constitutional even if secondary purpose was
drug interdiction based on permanent presence
of drug detection dogs
“Drug checkpoint ahead” sign on highway
• Driver takes first exit from highway after sign,
where vehicle is stopped by officers
– Reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle?
• No. United States v. Yousif, 308 F.3d 820
(8th Cir. 2002)
• Yes. State v. Mack, 66 S.W.3d 706 (Mo.
2002)
– Driver commits traffic violation—running stop
sign
• United States v. Williams, 359 F.3d 1019
(8th Cir. 2004)
Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004)
• Brief information-seeking vehicle checkpoint did
not violate Fourth Amendment
– Gravity of public concern served by checkpoint
• Solving vehicular homicide
– Degree to which checkpoint advanced public
interest
• Checkpoint tailored to investigatory need
– Severity of interference with individual liberty
• Wait for few minutes in line and a few
seconds involvement with officers
Other types of roadblocks
• Dicta in City of Indianapolis v. Edmund
– Court mentions roadblocks for emergencies
• Catch dangerous criminal fleeing from crime
• Thwart imminent terrorist attack
– Other emergencies
• Prison escape
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)
• Walking drug dog around vehicle while driver was
lawfully detained for traffic stop was
constitutional
State v. Foreman, 351 N.C. 627 (2000)
• Evading DWI checkpoint by turning onto street
before checkpoint constitutes reasonable suspicion
to stop vehicle
State v. Mitchell, 358 N.C. 63 (2004)
• Written guidelines are not required for driver’s
license checkpoints
• Officer received supervisory approval to conduct
driver’s license checkpoint
• Ruling: driver’s license checkpoint did not violate
Fourth Amendment
• Ruling: stop of vehicle was supported by
reasonable suspicion
• G.S. 20-16.3A
– License checkpoint that is in fact DWI
checkpoint?
• Checkpoints and drug dogs
– Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)
Driver’s License and Impaired Driving
Checkpoints
• State v. Sanders, 112 N.C. App. 477 (1993): SHP
license checkpoint followed guidelines
• State v. Barnes, 123 N.C. App. 144 (1996): SHP
checkpoint substantially complied with G.S. 2016.3A & guidelines
• State v. Grooms, 126 N.C. App. 88 (1997): license
checkpoint by deputies approved in advance by
sheriff
• State v. Tarlton, 146 N.C. App. 417 (2001): SHP
officers got supervisor approval for checkpoint
• State v. Colbert, 146 N.C. App. 506 (2001): DWI
checkpoint proper; no requirement to designate in
advance pattern for requesting Alco-Sensor testing