Garrett v. Goodwin
| Decision Date | 17 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. LR-C-82-385.,LR-C-82-385. |
| Citation | 569 F. Supp. 106 |
| Parties | Gary GARRETT, Steve Garrett, Craig Dowland, Donna Dowland, Bruce Silverman, Wyatt Carey, Dave Somers, James Bishop, Rebecca Turner, and Greg Parish, Plaintiffs, v. Col. Tommy L. GOODWIN, Director of the Arkansas State Police; Lt. Col. George Moye, Arkansas State Police; Maj. Buren Jackson, Arkansas State Police; Capt. Dave Davidson, Arkansas State Police; Lt. Dave Rosegrant, Arkansas State Police; Lt. Fred Odom, Arkansas State Police; Sgt. Bob Cooper, State Police; Sgt. Dwight Tosh, Arkansas State Police; Sgt. Bill Young, Arkansas State Police; Capt. Jim Beach, Arkansas State Police; Manuel Holcomb, Director of the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory; Roy Johnson, Chief of the State Highway Police; Division of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department; Capt. Max Ray, State Highway Police Division of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department; Lt. Charles Breeding, State Highway Police Division of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department; Lt. Danny McClean, State Highway Police Division of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department; Sgt. Tommy Briggs, State Highway Police Division of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department; Charles Dye, Chief of the Blytheville, Arkansas, Police Department; Sgt. Mike Medford, Blytheville, Arkansas, Police Department; and Coolidge Conlee, St. Francis County Sheriff, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Arkansas Civil Liberties Foundation, Inc., John Wesley Hall, Jr., Larry D. Vaught, Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiffs.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for defendants Goodwin, Moye, Jackson, Davidson, Rosegrant, Odom, Cooper, Tosh, Young, Beach, and Holcomb.
Chris Parker, Ark. H. and T. Dept., Little Rock, Ark., for defendants Johnson, Ray, Breeding, McClean, and Briggs.
Graham Sudbury, Blytheville, Ark., for defendants Dye and Medford.
Fletcher Long, Jr., Forrest City, Ark., for defendant Conlee.
Based on the Joint Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered in this case, the parties enter into the following consent decree for injunctive relief:
1. The Court adopts the Joint Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as the findings of the court in this case under F.R.C.P. 52(a).
2. The Court further finds that the conduct of this roadblock, as it affected the plaintiffs herein, constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
3. The defendants, State Police employees, are permanently enjoined to promulgate a written policy before March 1, 1983 based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law adopted by the Court herein governing the conducting of licensing and registration roadblocks and to follow such policy. This policy shall, at a minimum, address the following:
4. The parties agree and the Court holds that damages claims of all plaintiffs as well as claims for declaratory relief are hereby waived.
5. It is not the intention of this decree to restrict the activities of law enforcement other than is required by the Courts or the legislature under the Fourth Amendment, nor is it the intention of the parties that the Court will maintain any kind of supervisory role over the Arkansas State Police with regard to roadblocks.
6. The parties further recognize that significant changes in the law of search and seizure that may affect this decree can be remedied by modification of the written policies of the Arkansas State Police promulgated pursuant to this decree, and that modification of the decree itself is not necessary or required.
7. This decree only affects the actions of the Arkansas State Police in conducting roadblocks for drivers license and vehicle registration checks.
8. By entering into this decree, defendants, State Police employees, do not admit either liability or wrongdoing.
9. The parties agree that the plaintiffs herein are entitled to a reasonable attorneys' fee and that the amount of such fee shall be determined by the Court.
Plaintiffs are to submit their request for attorneys' fee, with supporting documentation by January 4, 1983. The defendants shall respond by January 14, 1983, and the plaintiffs may reply by January 21, 1983.
It is hereby considered, ordered, decreed and adjudged that this Consent Decree be entered this 17th day of December, 1982.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JOINT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
I. FINDINGS OF FACT ____________________________________________________ 109
A. Introduction _____________________________________________________ 110
B. Parties — Plaintiffs _____________________________________________ 110
C. Parties — Defendants _____________________________________________ 111
D. Civil Conspiracy _________________________________________________ 112
E. The Saturation Enforcement Plan of The 113
Arkansas State Police ____________________________________________
F. Planning the May 3-4 I-40 Roadblock ______________________________ 113
G. Conducting the May 3-4 I-40 Roadblock ____________________________ 114
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW __________________________________________________ 116
A. Preliminary Matters ______________________________________________ 116
1. Jurisdiction ________________________________________________ 116
B. Roadblocks as a Seizure __________________________________________ 116
C. License and Registration Check Roadblock _________________________ 116
D. General Issues of Vehicle Searches _______________________________ 118
1. Ordering Occupants from Vehicles at Such Roadblocks __________ 118
2. Burden of Justifying Warrantless Searches ____________________ 119
3. Plain View Searches __________________________________________ 119
4. Justification and Scopes of Vehicle Searches _________________ 119
5. Initiation of Consent Searches _______________________________ 120
6. The DEA Profile is Not Reasonable Suspicion or
Probable Cause _______________________________________________ 121
E. Overall Considerations __________________________________________ 121
The parties make the following Joint Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to F.R.C.P. 52(a) in support of the proposed Consent Decree:
A. Introduction
1.1 On May 3-4, 1982, the Arkansas State Police and other law enforcement agencies conducted a roadblock on Interstate 40 near Forrest City, Arkansas. This roadblock lasted twenty-three hours from 6:00 p.m. on May 3 to 5:00 p.m. on May 4.
1.2 On May 29, 1982, seven motorists and three passengers of some of the motorists filed this action for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that (1) the Arkansas State Police policy of conducting "saturation enforcement" roadblocks on interstate highways is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and (2) the May 3-4, 1982 roadblock on Interstate 40 was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment because of the way it was conducted. On August 23, 1982, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint with leave of the Court to allege a conspiracy and name additional defendants in management of the agencies involved who participated in the alleged conspiracy.
B. Parties — Plaintiffs
1.3 Plaintiff Gary Garrett is a resident of Saline County, Arkansas. He regularly drives the state and interstate highway system in Arkansas, traveling to West Memphis, Arkansas from Benton, Arkansas an average of two or three times a week.
1.4 Plaintiff Steve Garrett is a resident of Pulaski County, Arkansas. He regularly drives the state and interstate highway system in Arkansas. He often travels with his brother Gary Garrett to West Memphis, Arkansas.
1.5 Plaintiff Craig Dowland is a resident of Crittenden County, Arkansas. He travels daily interstate to Memphis, Tennessee to work over the state and interstate highway system in Arkansas.
1.6 Plaintiff Donna Dowland is a resident of Crittenden County, Arkansas. She and Craig Dowland are married. She regularly drives the state and interstate highway system in Arkansas.
1.7 Plaintiff Bruce Silverman is a resident of Texas. He regularly travels between Austin, Texas and Reynoldsville, Ohio. He was doing so on May 4, 1982, driving from Texas to Ohio, and he will do so again a few times a year.
1.8 Plaintiff Wyatt Carey is a resident of Tennessee and Texas. His work causes him to travel regularly to Arkansas where he must drive over the state and interstate highway system.
1.9 Plaintiff Dave Somers is a resident of Austin, Texas. He has driven and will in the future be driving through Arkansas on the state and interstate highway system.
1.10 Plaintiff James Bishop is a resident of Pine Bluff, Arkansas. He is a truck driver who regularly travels on the state and interstate highway system in Arkansas.
1.11 Plaintiff Rebecca Turner is a resident of Memphis, Tennessee. She regularly travels into or through Arkansas on the state and interstate highway system.
1.12 Plaintiff Greg Parish is a resident of Memphis, Tennessee. He regularly travels into or through...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pena, 18117
...a police officer observes drug paraphernalia that, based on the officer's training, shows signs of illegal use. See Garrett v. Goodwin, 569 F.Supp. 106, 120 (E.D.Ark.1982); People v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.App.3d 398, 87 Cal.Rptr. 283 (1970). In my opinion, the reasoning of these cases appli......
-
Com. v. Leninsky
...states have uniformly rejected a per se rule. See e.g. State v. Superior Ct., 143 Ariz. 45, 691 P.2d 1073 (1984); Garrett v. Goodwin, 569 F.Supp. 106 (E.D.Ark.1982) (applying Arkansas law); Ingersoll v. Palmer, 175 Cal.App.3d 1028, 221 Cal.Rptr. 659 (1985) (Review granted April 3, 1986); Pe......
-
Hagood v. Town of Town Creek
...States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 556, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 3082, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976) (immigration checkpoints); Garrett v. Goodwin, 569 F.Supp. 106, 116 (E.D.Ark.1982) ("roadblock conducted for any purpose"). See also Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 599, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 1383, 1......
-
United States v. Mendez
...be found in transport” in support of his argument that the troopers had no reason to search beyond the cab of the Silverado. (Doc. 94). In Garrett, defendants were stopped at roadblock and their vehicles were searched based on officers allegedly seeing marijuana seeds on the floorboard and ......