Source: http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/229/35/index.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:08:37+00:00

Document:
Motion to suppress. DeKalb State Court. Before Judge Taylor, pro hac vice.
Police set up a roadblock north of a cluster of nightclubs and bars as they were closing. Only vehicles driving north were stopped. Stearns was charged with DUI as a result of evidence obtained by police after he was detained. Because only vehicles proceeding in one direction were stopped, the trial court determined that the roadblock was unconstitutional and granted Stearns's motion to suppress. The trial court's decision turns on a misapplication of law to undisputed facts. Therefore, we reverse.
DeKalb County police officers established the roadblock near the Cherokee Plaza shopping center in Atlanta. Numerous drinking establishments are located south of the roadblock in the Buckhead area. All northbound drivers were asked to produce driver's licenses and proof of insurance. Stearns's vehicle was stopped by Officer Fox. Fox testified that when DeKalb County police establish roadblocks along multi-lane thoroughfares such as Peachtree Road, only vehicles traveling in one direction are stopped because of concerns for officer safety. He testified that there was an insufficient number of officers to stop vehicles going in both directions. Fox explained that roadblocks such as the one in this case are established during evening hours, because traffic is light and all vehicles traveling in one direction can be stopped without creating traffic congestion. Fox testified unequivocally that all vehicles traveling northward on Peachtree Road were being stopped on the night in question, although he acknowledged that he was not observing the roadblock while performing field sobriety evaluations on Stearns. He further acknowledged that the officers at the roadblock were looking for drunk drivers.
In Delaware v. Prouse, 2 the United States Supreme Court determined that a police officer's random stop of an automobile to check the licensing of the driver and registration of the vehicle constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Distinguishing Prouse, the Supreme Court in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz 3 approved sobriety checkpoints established at pre-selected sites at which all vehicles passing through are stopped and their drivers briefly examined for signs of intoxication.
The trial court found that the roadblock in this case satisfied the first, third, fourth, and fifth factors. The question is whether the one-way roadblock failed to meet the second factor.
Allowing supervisory personnel to establish one-way roadblocks does not create any significantly greater potential for the improper targeting of ethnic or racial minorities than empowering them to select the sites for two-way roadblocks. The question is whether such targeting actually occurred in a given case. Because there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that it did here, the court erred in granting the motion to suppress.
Monte K. Davis, for appellee.
1 (Citations omitted.) Vansant v. State, 264 Ga. 319, 320 (1) (443 SE2d 474) (1994).
2 440 U. S. 648 (99 SC 1391, 59 LE2d 660) (1979).
3 496 U. S. 444 (110 SC 2481, 110 LE2d 412) (1990).
4 171 Ga. App. 27 (318 SE2d 693) (1984).
5 269 Ga. 251, 252 (3) (497 SE2d 367) (1998).
6 Brent v. State, 270 Ga. 160, 161 (2) (510 SE2d 14) (1998).
7 269 Ga. at 253.
8 Ledford v. State, 221 Ga. App. 238, 240 (2) (470 SE2d 796) (1996).
9 237 Ga. App. 699, 700 (516 SE2d 548) (1999).
10 221 Ga. App. at 240.
11 Christopher v. State, 202 Ga. App. 40, 41 (1) (413 SE2d 236) (1991); accord Brimer v. State, 201 Ga. App. 401, 402 (2) (411 SE2d 128) (1991).
12 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) 202 Ga. App. at 41.
Gwendolyn R. Keyes, Solicitor, David M. Zagoria, Thomas E. Csider, Assistant Solicitors, for appellant.
DECIDED NOVEMBER 4, 1999 -- RECONSIDERATION DENIED NOVEMBER 16, 1999 -- CERT. APPLIED FOR.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.