People v. Andrews, 24995

• Decision Date: 16 February 1971
• Docket Number: No. 24995,24995
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Gregory ANDREWS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 1207

484 P.2d 1207

173 Colo. 510

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Gregory ANDREWS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 24995.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Feb. 16, 1971.

Robert L. Russel, Dist. Atty., Fourth Judicial Dist., Peter M. Susemihl, Elvin L. Gentry, Deputy Dist. Attys., Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellee.

Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, Denver, Kevin R. O'Reilly, Deputy State Public Defender, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellant.

DAY, Justice.

This is an interlocutory appeal from the district court of El Paso County where a motion to suppress evidence was denied.

The record discloses that on October 8, 1968, officers of the New Mexico State Police were conducting a roadblock north of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. All vehicles, both north and southbound, were being stopped in order to check 'safety equipment, brakes, license (plates), drivers licenses.'

When the automobile driven by the appellant Andrews was stopped at the roadblock, he produced a driver's license issued in Illinois, although the car license plates were issued in Missouri; he was unable to produce proof of ownership of the vehicle; he could not remember the middle name on his driver's license; the radio was conspicuously missing from the dash; there was damage to the front of the vehicle; and a liquor bottle was in view in a paper bag in the back seat. These observations prompted the officer to request Andrews to pull over to the side of the road. There appellant voluntarily opened the trunk of the car. A check of the vehicle identification number disclosed it corresponded to one listed for a vehicle which had been reported stolen. At this point, the defendant was arrested, advised of his constitutional rights, and was searched. On his person were American Express money orders, the serial numbers of which corresponded to those of money orders taken in a robbery of a Colorado Springs store.

Following the issuance of a search warrant, the vehicle was also searched, with additional evidence seized including a check writer and firearms. Cf. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 43, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419. The defendant was returned to Colorado and charged with robbery in the El Paso County district court.

The defendant contends that the stopping of his car at the roadblock was illegal, and therefore the articles seized during the subsequent search of his person and the car are inadmissible as evidence. Another argument advanced is so frivolous as to deserve no comment.

Following the evidentiary hearing the trial court denied the motion to suppress, ruling that the stopping of the vehicle was legal, and that the articles were properly seized. We hold the trial court ruled correctly.

On the allegation concerning the 'roadblock' defendant argues that there was interference with his freedom of movement without probable cause to believe that a crime had in fact been committed and that his later arrest after the stopping was illegal. The defendant relies on Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, for the proposition that an arrest occurs when an individual is 'deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.' Miranda is not in point. The thrust of Miranda is directed to the issue of 'police custody' and 'custodial interrogation' and not to what constitutes an arrest. The stopping of vehicles for traffic or general investigation has been specifically held to be non-custodial in nature. See Lowe v. United States, 9 Cir., 407 F.2d 1391; Jennings v. United States, 5 Cir., 391 F.2d 512.

The question of whether a roadblock set up for the limited purpose of traffic checks of operators licenses and other related matters constitutes an unlawful stopping or arrest is new to this jurisdiction, although not to others. It has been consistently held, in those jurisdictions where the issue has arisen, that traffic enforcement officers may stop motorists for routine checks, and such stopping does not amount to an arrest or unlawful stopping. See McCarthy v. United States, 8 Cir., 264 F.2d 473; Smith v. United States, 8 Cir., 264 F.2d 469; United States v. Bonanno, D.C., 180 F.Supp. 71; Miami v. Aronovitz, 114 So.2d 784 (Fla.); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 355 S.W.2d 686 (Ky.).

The specific application of holdings such as these to roadblocks set up to check all passing vehicles was made in a leading case:

'Even more important, operators who have been proven to be negligent, incompetent and a public hazard would be in a position to continue operating motor vehicles without fear of apprehension or restraint in the absence of some...