Court Opinion

ID: 9691477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:35:13.979789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:21.253445
License: Public Domain

GRAVES, Justice
Dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent because this was a reasonable roadblock for a legitimate public interest, highway safety.
The Court of Appeals panel erred by impermissibly invading the fact-finding province of the circuit court and by construing too narrowly City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32,121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000), wherein the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment had been violated because the city therein had conceded the primary purpose of the indianapolis checkpoints was narcotics detection. However, the Court expressly declined to address the constitutionality of multi-purpose roadblocks in the 6-3 decision. “[W]e need not decide whether the State may establish a checkpoint program with the primary purpose of checking licenses or driver sobriety and a secondary purpose of interdicting narcotics.” Id. at 47, 121 S.Ct. at 457, n. 2.
*572By comparison to the narcotics checkpoints considered in Edmond, supra, this case concerns a “routine roadblock ... safety check” established by the Butler County Sheriffs office at the intersection of KY 70 and KY 1117/369. As was the custom of that office, the “roadblock/safety check” was operated so as to stop all traffic traveling in both directions beginning at mid-afternoon on September 5, 1999, for the purpose of “checking for proper vehicle registration, DUI, drugs, and other violations.” Officers on the scene were accompanied by a “K-9” unit for the stated purposes of providing protection, drug detection, as needed, as well as any necessary tracking of persons attempting flight on foot. Signage warned approaching drivers of a “DUI-DRUG CHECK AHEAD.”
The Court of Appeals panel further erred in embracing the logic enunciated by the 2-1 majority in United States v. Huguenin, 154 F.3d 547 (6th Cir.1998), disparaging “mixed-motive checkpoints.” A-though Buchanon points out that this Court is bound by the Sixth Circuit, this case presents different circumstances from the roadblock ruse repeatedly referred to by the Sixth Circuit majority as a “trap” engendering “fear and surprise.” Id. at 561.
Because it is permissible to establish a valid sobriety check point that has a secondary or collateral purpose of drug interdiction, I would reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the Butler Circuit Court.
KELLER, and WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., join this dissenting opinion.