Martin v. State

11 FCDR 4064

313 Ga.App. 226

721 S.E.2d 180

MARTIN

v.The STATE.

No. A11A1922.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Dec. 7, 2011.

Allen Matthews Trapp, Jr., Carrollton, for appellant.

Brian Keith Fortner, Solicitor–General, Sherrill Naideen Britt, Assistant Solicitor–General, for appellee.

ELLINGTON, Judge.

Following a bench trial, the State Court of Douglas County found Teri Martin guilty of driving while under the influence of marijuana and cocaine to the extent it was less safe for her to drive, OCGA § 40–6–391(a)(2); and possession of marijuana, OCGA § 16–13–30(j)(1). Martin appeals, contending that the State failed to prove that the highway roadblock that led to her arrest had a legitimate purpose at the programmatic level, and, therefore, that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of that roadblock. Finding no error, we affirm.

It is well settled that “roving patrols in which officers exercise unfettered discretion to stop drivers in the absence of some articulable suspicion” are unconstitutional but that standardized highway checkpoints or roadblocks that serve legitimate law enforcement objectives are permissible under certain circumstances. Jacobs v. State, 308 Ga.App. 117, 706 S.E.2d 737 (2011). To justify a stop under this exception to the requirement that a law enforcement officer have an individualized suspicion of a crime before stopping a vehicle,

the State must prove that a highway roadblock program was implemented at the programmatic level for a legitimate primary purpose, that is, that the roadblock was ordered by a supervisor rather than by officers in the field and was implemented to ensure roadway safety rather than as a constitutionally impermissible pretext aimed at discovering general evidence of ordinary crime. Elevating the roadblock decision from the officers in the field to the supervisory level limits the exercise of discretion by the officers in the field. In addition, the State must prove that all vehicles were stopped as opposed to random vehicle stops; the delay to motorists was minimal; the roadblock operation was well identified as a police checkpoint; and the screening officer's training and experience was sufficient to qualify him or her to make an initial determination as to which motorists should be given field tests for intoxication.

(Citations, punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Id. at 118, 706 S.E.2d 737.

In this case, it is undisputed that, at approximately 5:00 a.m. on March 28, 2010, Martin stopped at a roadblock on Thornton Road near Skyview Drive. Martin contends that the State failed to identify a supervisor who decided to conduct a roadblock at that exact time and place and failed to offer admissible evidence of that unknown officer's primary purpose in implementing the roadblock. As a result, she contends, the State failed to prove that the particular roadblock was implemented at the programmatic level for a legitimate primary purpose.

At the hearing on Martin's motion to suppress, the Chief Deputy of the Sheriff's Office of Douglas County, Stan Copeland, testified that he was authorized to approve roadblocks, although he normally became involved only in large scale operations that required extensive personnel overtime. According to Chief Deputy Copeland, the roadblock at issue in this case was part of a large coordinated effort among the Sheriff's Offices of Douglas County and Carroll County and the Governor's Office of Highway Safety. The purpose of the operation was highway safety and driver sobriety. Chief Deputy Copeland approved his department's participation in the operation...