Court Opinion

ID: 9721047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:47:19.774395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:23.154596
License: Public Domain

Nolan, J.
(dissenting). I dissent. In reaching its result, the court elevates form to a triumphant height, leaving substance to stare upward in utter disbelief. The substantive issue is not whether the police strictly complied with the guidelines they devised, but whether the deviation from the guidelines was of *353such a nature or degree that the roadblock, as implemented, was “unreasonable.”
The deviation in this case was “de minimis.” It is difficult to understand how the State trooper’s failure to obtain permission from the troop commander to extend the roadblock a half hour somehow violated the defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The roadblock was in effect pursuant to a devised plan that was not arbitrary and which assured motorists’ safety and convenience. The fact that the roadblock lasted longer than authorized does not somehow change the nature of the roadblock. In this case, the State police established a roadblock in which they: (1) did not arbitrarily stop cars; (2) observed the public safety at all times; (3) performed in such a manner that the stops were brief, and took only seconds; and (4) ensured that no motorist was inconvenienced during the roadblock. See Commonwealth v. McGeoghegan, 389 Mass. 137, 143 (1983). Further, the State police devised a plan which enabled them to carry out the roadblock in the reasonable manner outlined above. The State police substantially complied with this plan except that the roadblock was in place a half hour longer than the plan authorized. The roadblock in place at 2:15 a.m., when the defendant’s vehicle was stopped, however, was the same roadblock that had been in place at 2 a.m. There is no evidence that the State police treated motorists stopped at 2:15 a.m. any differently than they had treated motorists stopped at 2 a.m. Nevertheless, those intoxicated motorists who drove by the roadblock after 2 a.m. are shielded from prosecution simply by their late arrival. The court’s application of strict compliance in this case is superficial and woodenly technical. Unlike Cinderella’s coach, the roadblock did not turn into a pumpkin at 2 a.m. The nature of the roadblock and the plan under which it was implemented remained the same and the drunk drivers who were driving at 2:15 a.m. were as blameworthy as those who were driving fifteen minutes earlier. They should be held just as responsible.