City of Las Cruces v. Betancourt

• Decision Date: 05 March 1987
• Docket Number: No. 9585,9585
• Citation: 105 N.M. 655,1987 NMCA 39,735 P.2d 1161
• Parties: CITY OF LAS CRUCES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizabeth BETANCOURT, and Henry J. Baca, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Page 1161

735 P.2d 1161

105 N.M. 655

CITY OF LAS CRUCES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizabeth BETANCOURT, and Henry J. Baca,

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 9585.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

March 5, 1987.

Certiorari Denied April 9, 1987.

[105 NM 656] Ben A. Longwill, Asst. City Atty., Las Cruces, for plaintiff-appellee.

Angel L. Saenz, Las Cruces, for defendants-appellants.

OPINION

GARCIA, Judge.

Defendants appeal the trial court's denial of their motions to suppress evidence. The two issues raised in this case are: 1) whether police roadblocks set up for the purpose of detecting and apprehending drunk drivers are constitutionally permissible in New Mexico; and, 2) if so, whether the particular roadblock operated by the Las Cruces police was constitutional as set up and operated. We affirm as to both defendants.

FACTS

In the late night hours of December 31, 1985 and the early morning hours of January 1, 1986, a roadblock was set up and operated on Amador Avenue by the Las Cruces police. The purpose of the roadblock was to detect and apprehend drunk drivers. A supervisor in the Las Cruces police department advised the field officers conducting the roadblock of the operation and briefed them on the procedures to be utilized. The field officers were provided with a written outline of what to say to motorists who were stopped at the roadblock.

Officer Childress, along with two or three other officers, manned the roadblock. The officers were wearing reflective vests and carrying flashlights to stop approaching vehicles. There were no signs warning the public that a roadblock was in progress, but the scene was well lit, and the officers placed flares and pylons on the street leading up to the roadblock so that approaching cars were funneled into one lane. A temporary stop sign was posted at the roadblock. A marked patrol car and a BATmobile were also present at the scene. There was no evidence as to the degree of delay to motorists, but the parties stipulated that the detentions were brief. Advance publicity concerning sobriety roadblocks had been disseminated to a local radio station for release.

Defendant Baca approached the roadblock between two and three o'clock on the morning of January 1, 1986. He stopped as requested by Officer Barreras. The officer looked inside the automobile and noticed two open beer cans. He also noticed that Baca's eyes were bloodshot and detected an odor of alcohol on his breath. The officer directed Baca to pull over to a side street, where a field sobriety and breath alcohol test were administered. Both tests indicated that Baca was under the influence of alcohol. He was arrested for driving while intoxicated.

Defendant Betancourt approached the roadblock a few minutes later. Officer Childress first noticed Betancourt's automobile at the stoplight east of the scene because the headlights of her vehicle were not turned on. As the vehicle approached the roadblock, its headlights were turned on, but Betancourt failed to stop when directed to by Officer Childress. Betancourt proceeded through the roadblock at a high rate of speed, almost hitting Officer Childress and another officer. Officer Childress radioed for assistance and the Betancourt vehicle was stopped a short time later. Betancourt was returned to the scene of the roadblock and arrested for driving while intoxicated.

Following denial of their motions to suppress, each defendant stipulated to driving with a blood-alcohol content greater than .10%.

DISCUSSION

Both defendants admitted they were driving while intoxicated when they were arrested. Nevertheless, they challenge the initial stops at the roadblock, arguing that they violate the fourth amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures. There is no question that in Baca's case the police did not possess any articulable facts upon which to base a reasonable suspicion or probable cause that he was driving while intoxicated prior to the initial stop. Accordingly, affirmance or reversal of his conviction depends entirely upon the constitutionality of the initial stop at the roadblock.

This is not true of Betancourt's appeal. The facts recited above show that Officer Childress possessed sufficient articulable facts upon which to stop her and probable cause to believe that she was driving while intoxicated. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Luna, 93 N.M. 773, 606 P.2d 183 (1980). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of her motion to suppress evidence. State v. Beachum, 83 N.M. 526, 494 P.2d 188 (Ct.App.1972) (trial court will be affirmed on appeal if right for any reason).

ISSUE NO. 1

It is beyond question that stopping motorists for the purpose of detecting and apprehending drunk drivers constitutes a "seizure" under the fourth amendment. E.g., Ingersoll v. Palmer, 184 Cal.App.3d 1198, 221 Cal.Rptr. 659 (1985), review granted, 224 Cal.Rptr. 719, 715 P.2d 680 (1986); State v. Deskins, 234 Kan. 529, 673 P.2d 1174 (1983); Webb v. State, 695 S.W.2d 676 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). See also Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976). The essence of the fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasion by governmental officials by imposing a standard of reasonableness upon the exercise of those officials' discretion. Deskins. Thus, we hold that a roadblock is not per se violative of the fourth amendment when motorists are stopped without probable cause or a reasonable suspicion, but, rather, we believe the question of whether a particular roadblock violates the fourth amendment is basically one of reasonableness. See People v. Bartley, 109 Ill.2d 273, 93 Ill.Dec. 347, 486 N.E.2d 880 (1985); People v. Scott, 63 N.Y.2d 518, 483 N.Y.S.2d 649, 473 N.E.2d 1 (1984).

However, because "[n]o right is held more sacred * * * than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference," Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251, 11 S.Ct. 1000, 1001, 35 L.Ed. 734 (1891), the reasonableness of any roadblock will be very closely scrutinized. In determining whether a roadblock is reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment, we must balance the gravity of the governmental interest or public concern served by the roadblock, the degree to which it advances these concerns and the severity of the interference with individual liberty, security, and privacy resulting from the roadblock. Ingersoll; Bartley; Deskins; Webb.

The need to deter, detect and remove drunk drivers from the public highways weighs heavily in favor of the state. Ingersoll; Bartley; Deskins; Scott. We need not recite the tragic figures involving the carnage caused by drunk drivers on our highways. See Ingersoll; Bartley. There can be no doubt that the threat posed by drunk drivers to public safety is so great that any reasonable efforts utilized by the state to deter, detect and remove them from the highways will be upheld by this court.

While no New Mexico cases have dealt with sobriety roadblocks, three cases have considered roadblock checks of driver's license and vehicle registration. See State v. Bloom, 90 N.M. 192, 561 P.2d 465 (1977); State v. Bidegain, 88 N.M. 466, 541 P.2d 971 (1975); State v. Ruud, 90 N.M. 647, 567 P.2d 496 (Ct.App.1977). In State v. Bidegain, no question of the validity of the stop was presented; therefore, the supreme court treated it as lawful. The supreme court in State v. Bloom simply held such stops are lawfully authorized pursuant to statutory authority. The supreme court was not called upon to consider the constitutional implications. In the same year that State v. Bloom was decided, this court did have occasion to examine the constitutionality of routine checks for license and vehicle registration. In State v. Ruud, we said that notwithstanding the statutory authority, such stops must comply with the constitutional requirements of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. While holding invalid stops based on random selection of motorists, we recognized the validity of "routine roadblocks set up in good faith to check registration certificates and driver's licenses." Id. 90 N.M. at 650, 567 P.2d at 499 (citation omitted).

All three of the cases just discussed were decided before Delaware v. Prouse. Because we discern no real difference between roadblocks to check for licenses and vehicle registration and roadblocks to check for sobriety, what we decide today simply adds to State v. Rudd the standard for determining the validity of roadblocks and guidelines useful in testing that standard. We take this opportunity to present eight guidelines that will be considered in determining the reasonableness of a roadblock. See Ingersoll. We would emphasize that we do not foreclose consideration of other relevant factors where appropriate and we hold that no one guideline is necessarily dispositive of the issue, so long as there is evidence to ensure that an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is not subject to arbitrary invasions solely at the unfettered discretion of officers in the field. Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979). See Delaware v. Prouse; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte.

1. Role of supervisory personnel.

We agree with the Ingersoll court that the decision to set up a sobriety roadblock, the selection of the site and procedures for conducting it must be made and established by supervisory law enforcement personnel rather than officers in the field. Ideally, roadblock decisions should be made by the chief of police or other...