Martin v. State
313 Ga. App. 226
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Following a bench trial, Martin was convicted of DUI with impairment from marijuana and cocaine and possession of marijuana.
- Martin challenged the suppression ruling, arguing the roadblock lacked a demonstrable programmatic level purpose.
- The roadblock occurred around 5:00 a.m. on Thornton Road near Skyview Drive as part of a larger operation.
- Chief Deputy Copeland testified he could approve roadblocks and that location/hours were set by unit commanders; the operation spanned Douglas and Carroll Counties and the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety.
- Two field officers testified they conducted the stop under the direction of Sergeant Martin, commander of the HEAT unit.
- The trial court found the roadblock lawfully implemented; on appeal, the State argued the supervisory authorization and purposes were established by the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the roadblock had a legitimate programmatic purpose | Martin argues lack of supervisor-level decision and primary purpose. | State contends supervisor authorization and highway-safety purpose were shown. | Yes; roadblock had legitimate programmatic purpose |
| Whether supervisory authority and purpose can be proven without Sergeant Martin’s testimony | Martín contends missing direct authority testimony undermines programmatic showing. | State relies on Copeland’s testimony and supervisors’ testimony about authority. | Authorized by supervisory testimony; sufficient record |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobs v. State, 308 Ga. App. 117 (2011) (roadblock programmatic level for legitimate primary purpose; checks, not roving patrol)
- LaFontaine v. State, 269 Ga. 251 (1998) (no unfettered discretion; roadblock not arbitrary)