Opinion ID: 2544571
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A checkpoint established for the purpose of general crime control, or detection of ordinary criminal wrongdoing includes violations of a city ordinance.

Text: The Commonwealth posits the view that Liberty's checkpoint did not run afoul of Edmond because a city ordinance violation is not a crime as defined in KRS 500.080(2), [6] and therefore, a roadblock detaining motorists to verify compliance with a city ordinance is not for the purpose of ordinary crime control. We need not parse the definition of crime, and in any case it is unlikely that the United States Supreme Court in Edmond took into account Kentucky's statutory definition of crime. The Commonwealth views Edmond too narrowly and overlooks the principle upon which Edmond is based. Edmond noted that each of the checkpoint programs that we have approved [referring to Sitz, Prouse, and Martinez-Fuerte ] was designed primarily to serve purposes closely related to the problems of policing the border or the necessity of ensuring roadway safety. Edmond, 531 U.S. at 42, 121 S.Ct. 447. We decline to suspend the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where the police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes. We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and everpresent possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime. Id. at 44, 121 S.Ct. 447. The rule established in Edmond does not depend upon the classification of the offense that a checkpoint was set up to discover. It turns upon the principle that a checkpoint set up to stop vehicles without individualized indicia of suspicion on the random chance of catching a law breaker is too great a breach in the wall of protection provided by the Fourth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court in Edmond condemned the highway checkpoint set up for general crime control (and specifically for drug law violations) because, if roadblocks so established were approved by the courts: there would be little check on the ability of the authorities to construct roadblocks for almost any conceivable law enforcement purpose. Without drawing the line at roadblocks designed primarily to serve the general interest in crime control, the Fourth Amendment would do little to prevent such intrusions from becoming a routine part of American life. Id. at 42, 121 S.Ct. 447. The concern voiced by the United States Supreme Court as the rational underpinning of Edmond is in no way lessened when the roadblock is used to detect violations of a city ordinance rather than a felony or misdemeanor. The threat to individual liberty is the same. Indeed, a city ordinance would appear to be of lesser stature than a crime as used in Edmond, and thus rather than distinguishing Edmond, the better assessment would appear to be that Edmond would apply with even more force against a roadblock set up solely to detect violations of a city ordinance. We also recall that the initial concern that sparked the need for the checkpoint was the report that some teachers had failed to pay the sticker fee. That concern could have been addressed by means far less intrusive than a traffic checkpoint. For example, police officers could have simply walked through the school parking lot and cited cars without a sticker. An appropriate factor to consider when assessing the validity of a traffic checkpoint is whether an alternate, less intrusive means is available to achieve the same objective.