Wilson v. Com.
Decision Date | 26 January 1999 |
Docket Number | Record No. 1166-97-1. |
Citation | 29 Va. App. 63,509 S.E.2d 540 |
Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Parties | Andra S. WILSON v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
Timothy E. Miller, Public Defender (Patricia A. Cannon, Senior Assistant Public Defender; Office of the Public Defender, on brief), for appellant.
Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: BRAY, OVERTON, JJ., and BAKER, Senior Judge.
Andra S. Wilson (appellant) appeals from his bench trial conviction by the Circuit Court of the City of Suffolk (trial court) for driving while intoxicated in violation of Code § 18.2-266. Appellant contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence. We agree and reverse the conviction.
Harris v. Commonwealth, 27 Va.App. 554, 561, 500 S.E.2d 257, 260 (1998).
So viewed, the evidence proved that on December 8, 1996, Officer Sayas was instructed by his lieutenant to establish a "security" checkpoint at the Hoffler Apartment Complex (Hoffler), which was owned by the Suffolk Public Housing Authority (the Authority). The Authority requested police assistance in response to resident complaints about trespassers and drug dealers on the premises. Sayas testified that he had patrolled Hoffler previously but that this was the first time he conducted a checkpoint there.
Sayas and another officer established the checkpoint just inside the entrance to Hoffler. They were told to stop all persons, whether traveling in a vehicle or on foot, entering the complex between midnight and 2:00 a.m. The officers were to ascertain the identity of each, person entering the complex and that person's purpose for being there. Appellant, who was driving an automobile, was stopped at the checkpoint at approximately 1:35 a.m. Sayas arrested appellant after determining that appellant was intoxicated. Appellant stipulated at trial that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of' driving while intoxicated. "[S]topping a motor vehicle and detaining its operator at a roadblock [or checkpoint] constitutes a `seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." Crandol v. City of Newport News, 238 Va. 697, 700, 386 S.E.2d 113, 114 (1989). If the stop is made without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, then "the seizure must be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers." Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979).
Applying this test, the Supreme Court of Virginia in Lowe upheld the constitutionality of a Charlottesville roadblock designed to combat drunk driving. See id. at 352-53, 337 S.E.2d at 277. The Court noted that the police had "analyzed the locations within the city where there had been drunk-driving arrests and alcohol-related accidents in order to determine the places where the checkpoints should be established." Id. at 351, 337 S.E.2d at 276 (emphasis added). In Sheppard v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 527, 489 S.E.2d 714 (1997), aff'd on reh'g en banc, 27 Va.App. 319, 498 S.E.2d 464 (1998),2
the officer who selected the roadcheck site testified that the police were actively engaged fighting drug trafficking in the area where the roadblock was established. See id. at 533, 489 S.E.2d at 717-18 (Coleman, J., dissenting).
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 453-54, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990). Nevertheless, the Commonwealth must present some evidence establishing that the method employed will be an effective tool for addressing the public concern involved. See Galberth v. United States, 590 A.2d 990, 999 (D.C.App.1991)
( ); Nieto v. State, 857 S.W.2d 149, 152-53 (Tex.App.1993) ( ); Shankle v. Texas City, 885 F.Supp. 996, 1002 (S.D.Tex.1995) (). Cf. Maxwell v. City of New York, 102 F.3d 664, 667 (2d Cir.1996) (, )cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 57, 139 L.Ed.2d 21 (1997); State v. Damask, 936 S.W.2d 565, 573 (Mo.1996) (en banc) ( ).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Edmond & Palmer v. Goldsmith
...States v. Morales-Zamora, 974 F.2d 149 (10th Cir. 1992); Galberth v. United States, 590 A.2d 990 (D.C. 1991), and Wilson v. Commonwealth, 509 S.E.2d 540 (Va. App. 1999), which held them illegal, with Merrett v. Moore, 58 F.3d 1547 (11th Cir. 1995), and State v. Damask, 936 S.W.2d 565 (Mo. 1......
- Overhead Door Co. of Norfolk v. Lewis, Record No. 0597-98-2.
-
Special Needs' and Other Fourth Amendment Searches
...against crime have been found to violate the Fourth Amendment. State v. Hayes , 188 S.W.3d 505 (Tenn. 2006); Wilson v. Commonwealth , 509 S.E.2d 540 (Va. Ct. App. 1999) (drug checkpoint inside entrance to public housing project unconstitutional). For more information about trafic checkpoint......
-
Special Needs' and Other Fourth Amendment Searches
...against crime have been found to violate the Fourth Amendment. State v. Hayes , 188 S.W.3d 505 (Tenn. 2006); Wilson v. Commonwealth , 509 S.E.2d 540 (Va. Ct. App. 1999) (drug checkpoint inside entrance to public housing project unconstitutional). For more information about tra൶c checkpoints......
-
Special needs' and other fourth amendment searches
...against crime have been found to violate the Fourth Amendment. State v. Hayes , 188 S.W.3d 505 (Tenn. 2006); Wilson v. Commonwealth , 509 S.E.2d 540 (Va. Ct. App. 1999) (drug check-point inside entrance to public housing project unconstitutional). For more information about trafic checkpoin......
-
Special needs' and other fourth amendment searches
...against crime have been found to violate the Fourth Amendment. State v. Hayes , 188 S.W.3d 505 (Tenn. 2006); Wilson v. Commonwealth , 509 S.E.2d 540 (Va. Ct. App. 1999) (drug checkpoint inside entrance to public housing project unconstitutional). For more information about traffic checkpoin......