Opinion ID: 1596567
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Neutral Criteria.

Text: Loyd argues the roadblock was not established based on neutral criteria. She asserts that to be based on neutral criteria, there must be empirical data supporting the roadblock and the roadblock must be carried out pursuant to a written plan. Her claim that empirical data is necessary relates to the effectiveness of the roadblock in advancing the public interest. Courts should not engage in a searching examination of the effectiveness of a roadblock as an enforcement technique. See Sitz, 496 U.S. at 453-54, 110 S.Ct. at 2484, 110 L.Ed.2d at 422 (which law enforcement technique should be used to deal with a serious public danger is a decision to be made by politically accountable officials, not the courts). Although some courts have mentioned empirical data when examining roadblocks, we do not believe empirical data is required to prove the roadblock advances the public interest. Loyd's argument would have us require the State to produce empirical data showing a high incidence of license, registration, and equipment violations at the location of the roadblock. In Prouse, the Supreme Court indicated in dicta that conducting a roadblock to check for driver's licenses and vehicle registration would be permissible, even though a policy of randomly stopping cars to check for licenses and registration was unreasonable in the absence of supporting empirical data. Prouse, 440 U.S. at 663, 99 S.Ct. at 1401, 59 L.Ed.2d at 673-74. The Court's primary concern in Prouse was with the unbridled discretion law enforcement officers have when making random stops. Id. at 661, 99 S.Ct. at 1400, 59 L.Ed.2d at 672. We disagree with Loyd's argument that the roadblock was unconstitutional because it was not conducted pursuant to a written plan. There is no Iowa case which requires a specific written plan before a roadblock may be conducted. Some other states do require a written plan and have held the absence of one or even a slight variation from the plan invalidates the roadblock. State v. Jones, 483 So.2d 433, 438 (Fla.1986) (requiring a written plan); Commonwealth v. Anderson, 406 Mass. 343, 350, 547 N.E.2d 1134, 1138 (1989) (extending roadblock by half an hour invalidated a stop made after the roadblock was scheduled to end). We do not believe that such strict compliance with a written plan is required in Iowa. The purpose of having a prescribed procedure as to where a roadblock will be held and which cars to stop is to limit the discretion of the field officers conducting the roadblock to prevent arbitrary selection of vehicles to stop. The fear is that unbridled discretion invites abuse such as the possibility that the roadblock will be utilized to target certain drivers for no other reason than some common characteristic unrelated to the [purpose of the roadblock], such as age, race or condition of the vehicle. State v. Payne, 759 S.W.2d 252, 253 (Mo.Ct.App.1988). Porter testified that the policy of the Iowa State Patrol and his district is to follow the requirements of Iowa Code section 321K.1. Section 321K.1 requires: a. The location of the roadblock, the time during which the roadblock will be conducted, and the procedure to be used while conducting the roadblock, shall be determined by policymaking administrative officers of the law enforcement agency. b. The roadblock location shall be selected for its safety and visibility to oncoming motorists, and adequate advance warning signs, illuminated at night or under conditions of poor visibility, shall be erected to provide timely information to approaching motorists of the roadblock and its nature. c. There shall be uniformed officers and marked official vehicles of the law enforcement agency or agencies involved, in sufficient quantity and visibility to demonstrate the official nature of the roadblock. d. The selection of motor vehicles to be stopped shall not be arbitrary. e. The roadblock shall be conducted to assure the safety of and to minimize the inconvenience of the motorists involved. Iowa Code § 321K.1(2). We find the statute constitutes a policy which is sufficiently detailed to render a roadblock conducted in accordance with it constitutionally reasonable. Following the statutory requirements minimizes the discretion of the field officers as to both operating procedures and the selection of vehicles and therefore restricts the potential intrusion into the public's constitutional liberties. We therefore conclude the roadblock was not unconstitutional under either the United States or Iowa Constitutions.