Opinion ID: 1109078
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Neutral Guidelines For Checkpoints

Text: A checkpoint constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Sitz, 496 U.S. at 450, 110 S.Ct. 2481. Checkpoints have been held permissible under the federal constitution and several state constitutions. [15] In all cases addressing the constitutionality of the checkpoints, the intrusion on the individual's liberty interest has been weighed against the legitimate governmental interest involved. Whether or not the governmental interest outweighs the concern for the protection of the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is determined in part by the severity of the intrusion inflicted by the state in a given set of circumstances. Other jurisdictions considering the issue have developed a list of factors to assist in making this determination. [16] After review of these cases, we set forth the following guidelines for evaluating whether the checkpoint's intrusiveness will withstand constitutional muster under the Fourth Amendment and Louisiana's Article I, § 5: [17] (1) the location, time and duration of a checkpoint, and other regulations for operation of the checkpoint, preferably in written form, established by supervisory or other administrative personnel rather than the field officers implementing the checkpoint; (2) advance warning to the approaching motorist with signs, flares and other indications to warn of the impending stop in a safe manner and to provide notice of its official nature as a police checkpoint; (3) detention of the motorist for a minimal length of time; and (4) use of a systematic nonrandom criteria for stopping motorists. In evaluating a checkpoint under this test, the guiding principle must be that the procedures utilized curtail the unbridled discretion of the officer in the field. Prouse, 440 U.S. at 662, 99 S.Ct. 1391; Brown, 443 U.S. at 51, 99 S.Ct. 2637. Applying the guidelines to this case, we conclude that the record is inadequate to address whether the insurance checkpoint implemented by Officers Hajek and Le-Blanc was constitutionally acceptable. The officers testified that every vehicle was stopped, and that the checkpoint was conducted pursuant to a task force assignment under Chief Pennington's orders. However, the record lacks sufficient evidence of the regulations or guidelines used for selecting and implementing the checkpoint, the length of time each motorist was detained, and the indicia to approaching motorists of the checkpoint's official nature. Considering that the State did not have the above guidelines when it brought charges against the defendant, fairness dictates that the State be given the opportunity to establish the evidence.