Sublett v. State

• Decision Date: 13 October 2004
• Docket Number: No. 49A02-0312-CR-1023.,49A02-0312-CR-1023.
• Parties: James SUBLETT, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

815 N.E.2d 1031

James SUBLETT, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee

No. 49A02-0312-CR-1023.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

October 13, 2004.

815 N.E.2d 1032

Brent Westerfield, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant

Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Ellen Meilaender, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, Judge.

Following a jury trial, Appellant James Sublett was convicted of operating a motor vehicle after his privileges had been forfeited for life, a Class C felony.¹ Upon appeal, Sublett presents one issue for our review, which we restate as whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence resulting from a sobriety checkpoint which he claims was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

We affirm.

The record reveals that in the evening of March 15, 2003, a sobriety checkpoint was operated by the Marion County Traffic Safety Partnership, a group comprised of representatives from various law enforcement agencies in Marion County. Lieutenant George Crooks of the Marion County Sheriff's Department supervised the checkpoint. Lieutenant Crooks has personally operated approximately fifteen to twenty sobriety checkpoints in the past. The March 15 checkpoint was conducted pursuant to written guidelines established by the Traffic Safety Partnership. The checkpoint stopped drivers traveling eastbound on East Tenth Street. The Traffic Safety Partnership approved this location. The location was chosen because police statistics from the previous year indicated that there were a high number of alcohol-related accidents and arrests for operating while intoxicated in the immediate area. The location was also well lighted, and a nearby parking lot provided a flat, safe surface for pursuing further investigations. The location also made it easy for police to close one lane of traffic while allowing other traffic to continue through other lanes. The checkpoint was operated during hours which statistics indicated a majority of alcohol-related accidents had occurred. On March 11, 2003, the Traffic Safety Partnership issued a press release to "major" newspapers, television stations, and radio stations in Marion County.²

815 N.E.2d 1033

Lieutenant Crooks testified that he received confirmation that the fax machines to which he sent the press release did in fact receive them, but he did not know whether the media actually published the information

Approximately fifty to one hundred yards west of the entrance to the checkpoint, police set up a fluorescent orange traffic sign which read, "[s]obriety checkpoint ahead." Transcript at 135. The sign was placed so that drivers traveling eastbound on Tenth Street had an opportunity to turn off onto another street before reaching the entrance point of the checkpoint. Lieutenant Crooks testified that only eastbound vehicles were stopped and he was "[a]bsolutely sure" that Sublett's vehicle was eastbound. Tr. at 133. Police had been instructed that avoiding the checkpoint was legal and that they could not stop a vehicle simply for doing so.

The police officers had no discretion regarding which vehicles would be stopped at the checkpoint. Instead, a pattern was followed in which the first three vehicles to arrive were stopped, and while those vehicles were detained, traffic was allowed to continue past the checkpoint. After the detained vehicles were released, the next three vehicles were stopped. Officers were also precisely instructed how to approach and screen the vehicles stopped. Pursuant to the written guidelines, officers would approach the vehicle, greet the driver and introduce themselves, and explain that they were conducting a sobriety checkpoint. They would then ask the driver to produce a driver's license and vehicle registration.³ During their encounters, the officers would look for signs of intoxication such as the smell of alcohol, open alcohol containers, and lack of manual dexterity. This also gave the officer an opportunity to converse with the driver and observe the driver's ability to perform a task while his attention was divided. If the officer observed any signs of intoxication, the vehicle was directed to a "safe area" for further investigation. Vehicles which were pulled over but not detained for further investigation were detained for less than two minutes. In fact, the deputy prosecuting attorney at the checkpoint timed each stop with a stopwatch and testified that, outside of vehicles detained for further investigation, no vehicle was detained "even close to two minutes." Tr. at 107.

Sublett's vehicle was one of the vehicles stopped. Marion County Sheriff's Deputy Kerry Buckner approached Sublett's vehicle, identified himself, explained that the police were conducting a sobriety checkpoint, and asked to see Sublett's driver's license and vehicle registration. Instead of a driver's license, Sublett gave Deputy Buckner an Indiana identification card. Because Sublett did not produce a driver's license, Buckner checked Sublett's driving record on his mobile data terminal. This revealed that Sublett's driving privileges had been forfeited for life as a result of his being an habitual traffic violator. Deputy Buckner therefore placed Sublett under arrest.

On March 17, 2003, the State charged Sublett with operating a motor vehicle after his driving privileges had been forfeited for life, a Class C felony. On March 18, 2003, Sublett waived his right to a jury trial, and on May 20, 2003, filed a motion to suppress. The trial court held a combined

815 N.E.2d 1034

bench trial and hearing on the motion to suppress on July 31, 2003. At the end of the hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement, and on August 14, 2003, the trial court denied the motion to suppress and found Sublett guilty as charged. Following a sentencing hearing held on October 3, 2003, the trial court imposed a sentence of four years executed with a direct commitment to Community Corrections

Upon appeal, Sublett claims that the sobriety checkpoint was conducted in a manner which violates both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. We will address each contention in turn, but we first note our standard of review.⁴ As the State correctly notes, the case at bar is not an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of Sublett's motion to suppress. Instead, Sublett appeals following his bench trial and conviction. Accordingly, the issue before us is properly framed as whether the trial court erred in admitting the evidence which resulted from the allegedly illegal seizure. See Washington v. State, 784 N.E.2d 584, 586-87 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to admit evidence. Id. at 587. We will reverse the trial court's ruling only when it has abused this discretion, i.e. when the trial court's decision is contrary to the facts and circumstances before it. Id.

With regard to his argument under the Fourth Amendment, traffic checkpoints have been held constitutional under certain circumstances. See Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990) (holding that Michigan's use of highway sobriety checkpoints did not violate the Fourth Amendment); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979) (invalidating discretionary, suspicionless stops for a spot check of motorists' driver's license and vehicle registration but suggesting that questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops would be a lawful means of serving interest in highway safety); City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) (invalidating checkpoint whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of "ordinary criminal wrongdoing," more particularly drug crimes). Thus, suspicionless traffic checkpoints for the purpose of either removing drunk drivers from the road or verifying driver's licenses and vehicle registrations appear to be permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

In Sitz, the Court applied a three-part test derived from Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 50-51, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979), balancing the state's interest in preventing accidents caused by drunk drivers, the degree to which the checkpoint advances the public interest, and the level of intrusion upon an individual's privacy caused by the checkpoints. The Sitz Court concluded that "[n]o one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it." 496 U.S. at 451, 110 S.Ct. 2481. The Court further held that the measure of the intrusion upon motorists stopped briefly at a sobriety checkpoint was slight. Id. The Court was clear, however, about the precise nature of the issue before it, specifically noting that

815 N.E.2d 1035

there were no allegations of unreasonable treatment of any person after an actual detention took place at a checkpoint. Id. at 450, 110 S.Ct. 2481. In doing so, the Court stated, "We address only the initial stop of each motorist passing through a checkpoint and the associated preliminary questioning and observation by checkpoint officers. Detention of a particular motorist for more extensive...