Com. v. Trumble
| Decision Date | 15 October 1985 |
| Citation | 483 N.E.2d 1102,396 Mass. 81 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. John F. TRUMBLE (and two companion cases 1 ). Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Byron D. Caplice, for Edward F. Massey.
Robert J. Bray, for John F. Trumble & another.
Edward F. Berlin, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Francis X. Bellotti, Atty. Gen., Carl Valvo, Asst. Atty. Gen., & Stanley E. Adelman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Secretary of Public Safety, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and WILKINS, LIACOS, ABRAMS, NOLAN, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.
On July 2 and 3, 1983, State Police officers conducted a roadblock on Route 116 in Sunderland. Each of the three defendants was stopped at the roadblock and, subsequently, arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. G.L. c. 90, § 24 (1984 ed.). Each defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the roadblock, alleging violations of his rights under both the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution. The motion judge denied these motions. He made no findings of fact. The defendants appealed, and filed a petition to transfer the case to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County. The parties cooperated with the single justice, agreed on the facts, and framed the questions. After a hearing, a single justice reserved and reported the following questions to this Court:
For the reasons set forth below, we answer "Yes" to Questions 1 and 2 as we interpret them. We choose not to address the issues presented by Question 3. We have reproduced the guidelines in an Appendix to this opinion.
1. Factual background. The facts, as agreed upon by the parties, may be summarized as follows.
A. Development and dissemination of the guidelines. In March of 1983, the Governor of the Commonwealth and Charles V. Barry, Secretary of Public Safety of the Commonwealth, decided to implement a series of roadblocks in an attempt to deter drunk driving. Lieutenant Thomas K. Kennedy, the head of Research and Development for the State Police, in consultation with several individuals and organizations, 3 created a set of guidelines relative to roadblocks. The guidelines were developed with a view toward compliance with this court's opinion in Commonwealth v. McGeoghegan, 389 Mass. 137, 449 N.E.2d 349 (1983). The guidelines were never officially promulgated as certain regulations are required to be promulgated. See generally G.L. c. 30A, §§ 2-3 (State Administrative Procedure Act).
On May 20, 1983, Secretary Barry's office decided that the first such roadblocks would be conducted on the upcoming July fourth weekend. On June 28, 1983, a training session was held at the State Police Academy. Captain James Port, Commanding Officer of the State Police Traffic Bureau, conducted the session, which was intended to train those in attendance to implement the guidelines at roadblocks to be conducted during the July fourth weekend. Those invited to the training session included the heads of all the State Police troops in the Commonwealth, as well as their assistants. Each person who attended the session received a copy of the guidelines.
At this training session, Port emphasized that there should be no deviations from the guidelines while the roadblocks were being conducted. If an emergency occurred, any change in the procedures set forth in the guidelines would have to be made by the supervising officer.
A second training session took place at the Academy on June 30, 1983. At this session, a demonstration roadblock was conducted in accordance with the instructions provided at the June 28 session. Those attending the sessions were told that the following criteria were to be applied in selecting a roadblock site: high accident rates, high rates of drunk driving arrests, safety conditions, and motorist convenience.
B. The Sunderland roadblock. Captain Thomas J. Fitzgerald, the captain in charge of the State Police in Western Massachusetts, accompanied by several assistants, attended the June 28 training session. Captain Fitzgerald also attended the June 30 session. He chose the site for the Sunderland roadblock, which was conducted on Route 116. The Route 116 patrol area is a high fatality area, and one with a high rate of drunk driving arrests.
The roadblock detail began at 7 P.M. on July 2, 1983. Thirteen uniformed State Police officers, including Captain Fitzgerald and one other officer who had attended the June 28 training session, took part in the roadblock. Each trooper received approximately one hour of training, during which Fitzgerald explained the procedures set forth in the guidelines. Fitzgerald trained the troopers as he had been instructed at the two training sessions at the Academy. The roadblock was conducted in a manner consistent with the training of Fitzgerald.
The troopers were instructed to stop every automobile as it approached the roadblock site, but to allow trucks and tractor-trailer units to pass through the roadblock without stopping. They were told that the initial contact would be no more than one minute for each individual operator. During that brief period, the troopers were to say "Good evening, how are you, this is a State Police sobriety checkpoint, we would like you to have a copy of the brochure on drunk driving laws." If the troopers saw no problems, they were to say "Thank you," and allow the vehicle to proceed. The actual stopping time at the roadblock was approximately thirty seconds. During that period, the trooper was instructed to observe the operator, as well as the interior of the vehicle, to determine if there was any suspicion that the operator had been drinking.
If the trooper suspected that the operator had been drinking, the trooper was to instruct the operator to drive to a detention area. Unless the operator was extremely intoxicated, he or she would be permitted to drive the vehicle into this area. In the detention area, a driver would be asked to produce a license and registration, and to perform three field sobriety tests.
The roadblock began at approximately 11:30 P.M. on July 2, 1983, and ended at approximately 2 A.M. on July 3, 1983. Five hundred and three vehicles approached the roadblock. Each was stopped. Sixteen operators were detained for further checks. Eight operators, including the three defendants, were arrested.
C. Publicity. Prior to the July fourth weekend, information concerning the upcoming roadblocks was provided to the news media, including television, radio, and print. Secretary Barry and Captain Fitzgerald both spoke to members of the media. The public relations office of the State Police distributed press releases to over four hundred news media affiliates within the State. Several newspapers, radio stations, and television stations in Hampshire county disseminated information about the roadblocks both prior to and during the holiday weekend.
2. Constitutional setting. We note that "[a]lthough the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights may afford greater protection to an individual than the protection afforded by the United States Constitution, ... the same factors are material to a consideration of the constitutionality under either document of a roadblock stop of motor vehicles for the purpose of detecting drunk drivers" (citations omitted). Commonwealth v. McGeoghegan, supra, at 141 n. 2, 449 N.E.2d 349. It is well established that the stopping of each defendant's motor vehicle was a seizure within the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653-654, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1395-1396, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). Our inquiry becomes, therefore, whether the seizures were reasonable. McGeoghegan, supra, 389 Mass. at 139, 449 N.E.2d 349. Accordingly, we must balance the public interest against "the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2579, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). Some courts have thought it important in a constitutional sense that the prosecution demonstrate that, in dealing with the problem of drunk drivers, there is no alternative to roadblocks that would be as effective as, and less intrusive than, roadblocks. See State v. Superior Court, 143 Ariz. 45, 691 P.2d 1073 (1984); State v. Deskins, 234 Kan. 529, 541, 673 P.2d 1174 (1983); State v. Koppel, 499 A.2d 977, 981 (N.H., 1985). We construe the questions asked of us as not raising this issue or the underlying question whether, for constitutional purposes, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richard T., In re
...346, 337 S.E.2d 273, cert. den. sub nom. Lowe v. Virginia (1986) --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed.2d 720; Commonwealth v. Trumble (1985) 396 Mass. 81, 483 N.E.2d 1102; State v. Superior Court (Simmons) (1984) 143 Ariz. 45, 691 P.2d 1073; People v. Scott (1984) 63 N.Y.2d 518, 483 N.Y.S......
-
Ingersoll v. Palmer
...test, several courts in other states have found particular sobriety checkpoints constitutional. (See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Trumble (1985) 396 Mass. 81, 483 N.E.2d 1102; People v. Bartley (Ill.1985) 109 Ill.2d 273, 93 Ill.Dec. 347, 486 N.E.2d 880; State v. Garcia (Ind.App.1985) 481 N.E.2d 1......
-
Horsemen's Benev. and Protective Ass'n, Inc. v. State Racing Com'n
...or suspicion and seize average citizens in the course of their lawful activities, Commonwealth v. Trumble, 396 Mass. 81, 98, 483 N.E.2d 1102 (1985) (Lynch, J., dissenting, with whom Liacos, J., joins), Commonwealth v. Shields, 402 Mass. 162, 169, 521 N.E.2d 987 (1988) (Liacos, J., dissentin......
-
Com. v. Shields
...acknowledged that it must prove that the roadblock was conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commonwealth v. Trumble, 396 Mass. 81, 483 N.E.2d 1102 (1985), and Commonwealth v. Mc 389 Mass. 137, 449 N.E.2d 349 (1983), but denied that it must disprove the existence of equall......
-
Independent state constitutional adjudication in Massachusetts: 1988-1998.
...from his typically conservative record). (74) Shields, 521 N.E.2d at 992 (Liacos, J., dissenting). (75) See id. at 993-96. (76) 483 N.E.2d 1102 (Mass. (77) Id. at 1114. (78) See Shields, 521 N.E.2d at 997 (Liacos, J., dissenting) (quoting Justice Lynch's dissent in Trumble, 483 N.E.2d at 11......