Com. v. Bothman
| Citation | 941 S.W.2d 479 |
| Decision Date | 22 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-CA-0194-MR,96-CA-0194-MR |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellant, v. Jeff C. BOTHMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
A.B. Chandler, III, Attorney General, Michael L. Harned, Assistant Attorney General, Frankfort, for Appellant.
Raymond S. Bogucki, Maysville, for Appellee.
Before WILHOIT, C.J., and GARDNER and KNOPF, JJ.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky appeals from an order of the Mason Circuit Court which suppressed the introduction of evidence seized at a police checkpoint. We reverse and remand.
On July 3, 1994, Kentucky State Police Trooper A.K. Taylor (Taylor) radioed a request to his supervising officer seeking permission to establish an automobile checkpoint at the Maysville-Aberdeen bridge in Mason County, Kentucky. The supervising officer, Sergeant Farley (Farley), verified that the bridge was a pre-approved location for the establishment of such checkpoints, and approved Taylor's request. Taylor proceeded to the bridge and established the checkpoint. Sometime thereafter, an automobile operated by Jeff C. Bothman (Bothman) was stopped at the checkpoint, and a vial of cocaine allegedly was found in Bothman's possession. Bothman was arrested.
Bothman subsequently filed a motion with the Mason Circuit Court to suppress the introduction of the cocaine into evidence. He argued that the establishment of the checkpoint did not conform with Kentucky State Police General Order OM-E-4 (hereinafter referred to as OM-E-4), and that accordingly the seizure of the evidence arising therefrom was improper and the evidence should be suppressed. The lower court was persuaded by this argument, and it granted Bothman's motion to suppress. This appeal followed.
The Commonwealth now argues that the lower court erred in granting Bothman's motion to suppress. Specifically, it argues that the checkpoint was established in conformity with OM-E-4, and alternatively that the question for the lower court was not whether OM-E-4 was complied with but whether the establishment and operation of the checkpoint passed constitutional muster. Having closely studied the facts and the law, and having heard the arguments of counsel, we find the Commonwealth's argument compelling and must reverse and remand.
OM-E-4 sets forth guidelines for the establishment and operation of checkpoints. It provides in relevant part that the post commander or his designee shall develop and maintain a list of locations suitable for the operation of checkpoints, and that checkpoints shall be established only at those locations absent extenuating circumstances. It states that checkpoints shall be scheduled by memorandum or noted on the work schedule, and that non-supervisory officers may request to establish checkpoints at approved locations consistent with the guidelines. The lower court found that the establishment of the checkpoint in question failed to comply with what it found to be OM-E-4's requirement that checkpoints be scheduled "in advance" by the appropriate administrative officer. Since the checkpoint was scheduled during Taylor's shift rather than before his shift, the lower court ruled that the checkpoint was improperly established and that the evidence obtained should be suppressed. In support of this ruling, it concluded that, "[A]t the very least, such checkpoints should be 'scheduled' by the appropriate officer prior to any given shift."
We believe the matter must be reversed for either of two reasons. First, though the lower court concluded that a checkpoint must be scheduled before an officer's shift begins rather than during the officer's shift, we find that OM-E-4 contains no such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mitchell
...supervisory personnel not officers in the field), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 947, 119 S.Ct. 371, 142 L.Ed.2d 307 (1998); Commonwealth v. Bothman, 941 S.W.2d 479 (Ky.Ct.App.1996) (recognizing the importance of a systematic plan and supervisory control over establishment and operation of a checkp......
-
Com. v. Buchanon
...of officers at the scene, and that the checkpoint be established pursuant to some sort of systematic plan. See Commonwealth v. Bothman, Ky.App., 941 S.W.2d 479 (1996); Steinbeck v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 862 S.W.2d 912 (1993); Kinslow v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 660 S.W.2d 677 In the case at ......
-
Rassman v. Commonwealth, No. 2007-CA-001560-DG (Ky. App. 3/20/2009), 2007-CA-001560-DG.
...of the checkpoint was violative of the constitutions of the United States or of the Commonwealth. (citing Commonwealth v. Bothman, 941 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Ky. App. 1996). Rather, the guidelines "are to be applied on a case-by-case basis in order to determine the reasonableness of each roadbloc......
-
Smith v. Com.
...Buchanon, 122 S.W.3d at 568. As previously noted, the KSP has a Traffic Checkpoint Policy, referred to as OM-E-4. In Commonwealth v. Bothman, 941 S.W.2d 479 (Ky.App. 1996), this Court discussed an officer's noncompliance with OM-E-4 in establishing a checkpoint and [E]ven if the checkpoint ......