Jacobs v. State
308 Ga. App. 117
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Jacobs was arrested for DUI per se after a roadblock on Georgia Highway 54 at Cobblestone Boulevard.
- Officer Crawshaw, a captain and shift supervisor, planned the roadblock before her shift but did not obtain prior written/verbal approval from higher supervisors.
- Crawshaw personally encountered Jacobs at the roadblock and initiated the DUI investigation after smelling alcohol.
- The highway roadblock was used to carry out departmental road safety checks at a prescribed frequency under a uniform goal policy.
- Jacobs argued the roadblock was implemented by a field officer, not at the programmatic level, violating Fourth Amendment standards.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed, applying programmatic-level authority and LaFontaine factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the roadblock implemented at the programmatic level? | Jacobs argues Crawshaw acted in the field, not under programmatic authorization. | State contends Crawshaw had programmatic authority to plan and implement roadblocks. | Yes; roadblock implemented at the programmatic level. |
| Do LaFontaine/Hobbs factors support reasonableness of the checkpoint? | Insufficient evidence of programmatic implementation and purpose. | Roadblock served legitimate safety purpose with supervisory authorization. | Factors satisfied; reasonable checkpoint. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (U.S. 2000) (programmatic level inquiry for roadblocks; not probing officer minds)
- LaFontaine v. State, 269 Ga. 251 (Ga. 1998) (minimum prerequisites for roadblock reasonableness; uniformed checks)
- Gonzalez v. State, 289 Ga.App. 549 (Ga. App. 2008) (programmatic-level roadblock where authority to implement exists)
- Giacini v. State, 281 Ga.App. 426 (Ga. App. 2006) (supervisory role despite field presence; programmatic implementation)
- Harwood v. State, 262 Ga.App. 818 (Ga. App. 2003) (delegation of roadblock authority via department policy)
- Perdue v. State, 256 Ga.App. 765 (Ga. App. 2002) (time/location decisions may reflect programmatic control)
- Ross v. State, 257 Ga.App. 541 (Ga. App. 2002) (policy authority supports programmatic roadblock decisions)
- Thomas v. State, 277 Ga.App. 88 (Ga. App. 2005) (contrast with spontaneous field decisions; need policy support)
- Rappley v. State, 306 Ga.App. 531 (Ga. App. 2010) (uncontested authority to implement roadblock is sufficient)
- Britt v. State, 294 Ga.App. 142 (Ga. App. 2008) (field implementation challenged when not programmatic)