FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT FEB 26, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13797 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 68 -C R -D F -5 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s S E A N B R Y A N T R E G A N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 26, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S e a n B ry an t R e g a n , th r o u g h c o u n s e l, ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h isThe pa rties agreethat the application of the law to the facts should be reviewed de 1 novo, and they

do not sugg est that, to the extent Rega n argues for

the first time on appe al that the checkpoint was unrea sonable, weshould review f or plain er

ror. 2 m ot i on t o sup pres s, and h i s c on vi ct i on for unl aw ful po ss es si on of an un re gi st er ed fi re arm , i n v i ol at i on of 26 U . S . C . § 5 86 1(d). R egan argues thatthe di stri ctcourt c le a r ly e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s e v id e n c e b e c au s e th e v e h ic le chec kp oi ntvi ol at ed the F ou rth A m endm ent . F i rs t , R egan argues thatthe pri m ary pu rpose of the checkpointw as i m perm i ss i bl y f or general cr i m e c on trol ra ther than tr a f f i c s a f e ty . S e c ond, R e ga n a r gue s tha te ve n i f the pr i m a ry purpos e of the c he c kpoi ntw a s tr a f

f i c s a f e ty , the c he c kpoi ntw a s unr e a s onabl e a nd vi ol a t e d the F o u r th A m e n d m e n t b e c au s e th e g o v e rn m e n t’s in te r e s t in p r e v e n tin g m o to r is ts f r om runni ng the f

our - w a y i nt e r s e c t i on w a s onl y s l i ghta s c om pa r e d t o the si g n i fi can ti n tru si o n u p o n th e i n d i v i d u al m o t o ri st s.

“ A di s tr i c tc our t ’ s rul i ng on am ot i on t o s uppr e s s pr e s e nt s am i xe d que s t i on o f la w a n d f

a c t.” U n ite d S ta te s v . Z ap a ta , 1 8 0 F .3 d 1 2 3 7 , 1 2 4 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . W e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s fin d in g s o f f ac t fo r c learer ro r, an d th e c o u rt’s appl i c a t i on of

the l a w t o thos e f

a c t s de novo. I d. T he s e f a c tua l f i ndi ngs i nc l ude 1 the di stri ctcourt ’ s c re di bi l i ty det erm i nat i on s, t o w hi ch w e w i l l “ ac cord c ons i de r abl e de f

e r e nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s . v. R a m i r e z - C hi l e l , 289 F . 3d 744, 749 (11th C i r. 20 02 ) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). “ [A ] l l fa ct s are3

construed i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the prevai l i ng party bel ow . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. B e rva l di , 226 F . 3d 1256, 1262 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . “ T he i ndi vi dua l c ha l l e ngi ng the s e a r c h ha s the bur de ns of pr oof a nd pe r s ua s i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C oope r , 133 F . 3d 13 94 , 13 98 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). T h e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t p r o v id e s f o rth e r ig h t to b e f

r e e o f u n r e a s o n ab le s e a r c he s a nd s e i z ur e s , a nd m a nda t e s tha t“ no W a rr a nt s s ha l l i s s ue , butupon pr obabl e c aus e , s uppor t e d by O a th ora f f i rm a t i on. ” U . S . C ons t . a m e nd. I V . T he F our th A m e ndm e ntr e qui r e s tha ts e a r c he s a nd s e i z ur e s be r e a s onabl e . A s e a r c h or s e i z ur e i s or di na r i l y unr e a s onabl e i n the abs e nc e of i ndi vi dua l i z e d s us pi c i on of w r ongdoi ng. C ha ndl e rv. M i l l e r , 520 U . S . 305, 308, 117 S . C t . 1295, 137 L . E d. 2d 5 1 3 (1 9 9 7 ). C o n si d erat i o n o f th e co n st i tu t i o n al i ty o f su ch sei zu res i n v o l v es a w e ig h in g o f

th e g r a v ity o f

th e p u b lic c o n c e rn s s e rv e d b yth e s e iz u r e , th e d e g r e e to w hi ch the se i zure advances the pu bl i c i nt er es t , and the se veri ty of the i nt er fe re nce w i th i ndi vi dua l l i be r ty . B r ow n v. T e xa s , 443 U . S . 47, 50- 51, 99 S . C t . 2637, 2640, 6 1 L .E d .2 d 3 5 7 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ( c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) .

“ Iti s w el l es t abl i shed thata vehi cl e s t op ata hi gh w aychec kp oi ntef fe ctuat es as e iz u r e w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t.” M ic h ig a n D e p t. o f S ta te P o lic e v . S itz , 4 9 6 U .S . 4 4 4 , 4 5 0 , 1 1 0 S .C t. 2 4 8 1 , 2 4 8 5 , 1 1 0 L .E d .2 d 4 1 2 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . T he U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rt , ho w ever , has “ re cogn i ze d . . . l i m i t ed4

c i r c um s t a nc e s i n w hi c h the us ua l rul e [ of i ndi vi dua l i z e d s us pi c i on] doe s not appl y . ” C i ty of

I ndi a napol i s v. E dm ond, 531 U . S . 32, 37, 121 S . C t . 447, 451 148 L . E d. 2d 33 3 (20 00 ). F or exam pl e, the S up re m e C ou rthas uph el d b ri ef , s us pi c i onl e s s s e i z ur e s of m ot or i s t s a tas obr i e ty c he c kpoi nta i m e d a tr e m ovi ng drunk dr i ve r s f

r om the r oa d. S i t z , 496 U . S . a t445, 110 S . C t . a t2488. I n a ddi t i on, i n D e l a w a r e v. P r ous e , 440 U . S . 648, 663, 99 S . C t . 1391, 1401, 59 L . E d. 2d 660 ( 1979) , the S upr e m e C our ts ugge s t e d tha tar oa dbl oc k t o que s t i on a l l onc om i ng tr a f f i c t o ve r i f

y i ng dr i ve r s ’ l i c e ns e s a nd ve hi c l e r e gi s tr a t i ons w i th the i nt e r e s tof s e rvi ng hi ghw a y s a f

e tyw oul d be pe rm i s s i bl e unde rthe F our th A m e ndm e nt . T he S up re m e C ou rt , ho w ever , has hel d thata c heckpo i ntprog ra m w ho se pri m ary purpos e w a s t o de t e c te vi de nc e of or di na ry c r i m i na l w r ongdoi ng vi ol a t e s the F our th A m e ndm e nt . E dm ond, 531 U . S . a t37- 38, 121 S . C t . a t452. E ve n i f the gove rnm e ntha s the author i ty t o c onduc tac he c kpoi nt , the r e a s onabl e ne s s i nqui ry unde rthe F our th A m e ndm e ntr e qui r e s ade t e rm i na t i on of w he the rthe i ntrus i on on a n i ndi vi dua l ’ s pr i va c y w a s w a rr a nt e d i n l i ghtof the st at e’ s i nt er es t . S i t z, 49 6 U . S . at45 3-45 4, 11 0 S . C t . at24 87 . S t i l l , the di stri ct c o u r t s h o u ld n o t a tte m p t t o tr a ns f e rf r om pol i t i c a l l y a c c ount abl e of f i c i a l s t o the c our t s the de c i s i on a s t o w hi c h a m ong r e a s onabl e a l t e rna t i ve l a w e nf or c e m e nt te c h n iq u e s s h o u ld b e e m p lo y e d to d e a l w ith as e r io u s p u b lic d a n g e r . B utf orpurpos e s of

F our th A m e ndm e nta na l y s i s , the c hoi c e a m ong5

s u c h r e a s o n ab le a lte rn a tiv e s r e m a in s w ith th e g o v e rn m e n ta l o f f ic ia ls w ho have a uni qu e und er st andi ng of, and a res po nsi bi l i ty f or, l i m i t ed p u b l i c reso u rces, i n cl u d i n g a fi n i t e n u m b er o f p o l i ce o ffi cers. Id. T hu s, w e m ustal so consi der w hether the go vernm ent ’ s “ op er at i on –as pl anned o r i n th e real i ty o f i t s p erfo rm an ce– v i o l at ed p l ai n t i ff’ s co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h t s; th ati s, w h e th e r[ th e c h e c kp o in t w a s ] r e a s o n ab le in th e lig h t o f th e s ta te ’s in te r e s t in cond uct i ng the roadbl ocks, the ef fe ct i veness of the op er at i on i n p rom ot i ng that i nt e r e s t , a nd the l e ve l of i ntrus i on on the i ndi vi dua l ’ s pr i va c y c aus e d by the chec kp oi nt s. ” M erre ttv. M oo re , 58 F . 3d 15 47 , 15 51 (11th C i r. 19 95 ). In th is ca se , t es ti m o n y a t th e s u p p re ss io n h ea rin g su p p o rts th e d istrict co u rt’s f in d in g th a t th e c h e c kp o in t w a s im p le m e n te d p r im a r ily to r e s p o n d to tr a f f ic s a f e ty c onc e rns . D i s tr i c tC our tO pi ni on a t12 ( “ T he G ove rnm e ntha s s how n tha tthe p r i ma ry p u rp o s e o f

th e c h e c kp o i n ti n q u e s t i o n w a s n o tt o e n g a g e i n g e n e r a l c r i me c ontr ol , buti ns t e a d t o pol i c e the i nt e r s e c t i on f ordrunk dr i vi ng, t o pe r f orm r out i ne chec ks for dri vers ’ l i ce nses and v ehi cl e r egi stra t i on , and t o enforce c om pl i ance w i th ge ne r a l tr a f

f i c l a w s . ” ) . T he M onr oe C ounty S he r i f f’ s O f f i c e pol i c y r e ga r di ng chec kp oi nt s i nd i ca t ed thatthey w er e t o focus on the prob l em of road sa fe ty. In a ddi t i on, O f

f i c e rD unc a n a nd C pl . G r i nds t a f f r e por t e d tha tthe purpos e of the chec kp oi ntw as t o res po nd t o com pl ai nt s of m ot ori st s run ni ng the four-w ay in te r s e c tio n a t T e a g le a n d B r o w n le e R o a d s , th a t th e in te r s e c tio n w a s p la g u e d w ith6

i nt ox i ca t ed dri vers com i ng fr om nei gh bo ri ng coun t i es , and thatea ch vehi cl e w as s t o p p e d t o c h e c kth e mo t o r i s t s ’ s l i c e n s e a n d p r o o f o f i n s u r a n c e . Se e Si t z , 4 9 6 U . S. a t445, 110 S . C t . a t2481, P r ous e , 440 U . S . a t663, 99 S . C t . a t1401. F u rth erm o re, ev en th o u g h D ep u ty B l an k s st at ed ato n e p o i n tth atth e p u rp o se of the checkpointw as t o res po nd t o a hi gh vo l um e of burgl ar i es and n ar cot i cs o f f e n s e s i n th e a r e a , th a td i d n o ti n v a l i d a t e th e l a wf u l n e s s o f th e c h e c kp o i n t . As th e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te d , D e p u ty B la n k s w a s n o t e m p lo y e d b y th e s h e r if f’s o f f ic e in as u p e rv is o ry c ap a c ity ; in s te a d , h e w a s in tr a in in g a t th e tim e o f th e c h e c kp o in t. T h u s , h e d id n o t h a v e ar o le in ap p r o v in g th e c h e c kp o in t. I n a d d itio n , D e p u ty B l anks’ s s t at em entw as no tcorr ob orat ed by other docum ent ary and t es t i m on i al e vi de nc e , a nd, a tthe s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng, he c l a r i f i e d tha tthe c he c kpoi ntha d a d u a l p u rp o s e . W ith r e s p e c t to th e b a la n c in g o f c o m p e tin g in te r e s ts , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id no terr i n fi nd i ng thatthe checkpointadvanced an i m po rt antst at e i nt er es tas com pare d t o the l evel of i ntrusi on on i nd i vi du al ’ s pri vacy . F i rs t , the di stri ctcourt d id c o n s id e rth e c o m p e tin g in te r e s ts im p lic a te d in c a rry in g o u t th e c h e c kp o in t, n am ely, th e c o u n ty’s in tere st in m ain tain in g h ig h w ay sa fe ty, th e c h ec kp o in t’ s ef fe ctiv en es s a t ach iev in g th at g o al, an d th e lev el o f in tru sio n o n an in d iv idu al’s pr i va c y , a nd c onc l ude d tha tthe ba l a nc e of the i nt e r e s t s w e i ghe d i n f a vorof f i ndi ng7

th e c h e c kp o in t r e a s o n ab le u n d e rth e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t. S ec on d, the af

t erarre stre po rt s and supp re ss i on hear i ng t es t i m on y c on fi rm ed tha tthe c he c kpoi ntw a s e xe c ut e d f orthe i m por t a nts t a t e i nt e r e s tof e ns ur i ng c o m p lia n c e w ith th e s ta te ’s d r iv e rlic e n s in g a n d v e h ic le r e g is tr a tio n la w s , a n d to c he c k f ordrunk dr i ve r s . S e e S i t z , 496 U . S . a t445, 110 S . C t . a t2481, P r ous e , 440 U . S . at6 5 7 -5 8 , 9 9 S . C t . at1 3 9 8 . T h e d o cu m en t ary an d t est i m o n i al ev i d en ce al so s how e d tha te ve ry m ot or i s tw ho dr ove thr ough the i nt e r s e c t i on dur i ng the ch eckp o i n tw as st o p p ed . T h u s, th e o ffi cers d i d n o ten g ag e i n ran d o m i zed st o p s; i ns t e a d, e ve ry ve hi c l e w a s s t oppe d a nd e ve ry m ot or i s tw a s a s ke d f or d o c u m e n ta tio n . S e e P r o u s e , 4 4 0 U .S . a t 6 6 1 , 9 9 S .C t. a t 1 4 0 0 . T h e e v id e n c e s h o w s ac h e c kp o in t d e s ig n e d to c o m p ly w ith th e C o n s titu tio n . E ven tho ug h rec ords of the t i m e r equi re d t o con du ctthe do cum enti nspect i on w er e notke pt , a tthe he a r i ng D unc a n t e s t i f i e d tha tthe c he c kpoi nts t op l a s t e d a n a ve r a ge of one ortw o m i nut e s . S e e M e rr e tt , 58 F . 3d a t1551 ( uphol di ng al e s s tha n one m in u te c h e c kp o in t s to p f o rd o c u m e n t in s p e c tio n a n d e x te rn a l s n if f b y aK - 9 u n it) . E vi dence pres ent ed atthe heari ng show ed thatthe sher i ff’ s off i ce had rece i ved c o m p la in ts o f

tr a f f ic s a f e ty v io la tio n s a t th e in te r s e c tio n . I n s um , the gove rnm e nt ’ s i nt e r e s ti n pr e ve nt i ng a c c i de nt s c aus e d by m ot or i s t s , s om e of

w hom w e r e i nt oxi c a t e d, runni ng the f our - w a y i nt e r s e c t i on, the8

ef fe ct i veness of the checkpointi n achi evi ng the go al of tra ff i c s af ety, and the l evel of i ntrus i on on a n i ndi vi dua l ’ s pr i va c y c aus e d by the c he c kpoi nt , w e i ghs i n f a vor o f th e c h e c kp o i n t . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.