McCoy v. State
303 Ga. 551
Ga.2018Background
- Latisha McCoy was stopped at a Henry County DUI roadblock around 12:30 a.m.; the screening officer suspected marijuana impairment and another officer later arrested her for DUI after further investigation.
- McCoy moved to suppress all evidence from the stop, arguing the roadblock violated the Fourth Amendment.
- At the suppression hearing the screening officer did not testify; only a police sergeant testified that the checkpoint was implemented under departmental policy and that officers were POST-certified.
- Trial court denied suppression, finding POST certification established sufficient training/experience for screening officers. Court of Appeals affirmed, taking judicial notice that POST-certified officers have sufficient training.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari, rejected the Court of Appeals’ analysis of LaFontaine’s fifth factor, disapproved that fifth factor, but affirmed the conviction because McCoy only challenged the roadblock’s constitutionality and did not preserve a separate challenge to the screening officer’s reasonable suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | McCoy's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the roadblock complied with LaFontaine’s fifth factor (screening officer’s training/experience) | POST certification alone is insufficient; training ≠ experience, so State failed to prove screening officer qualified to select motorists for field tests | POST certification and academy training suffice to qualify officers to make initial determinations at checkpoints | The court disapproved LaFontaine’s fifth factor as a separate roadblock requirement and held courts should instead assess whether the screening officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to refer motorists for further testing; McCoy’s specific objection was not preserved, so judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- LaFontaine v. State, 269 Ga. 251 (established four LaFontaine checkpoint factors and a fifth factor regarding screening officer qualifications)
- Brown v. State, 293 Ga. 787 (explained LaFontaine factors and added Edmond primary-purpose inquiry)
- City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (checkpoint constitutionality requires inquiry into primary purpose)
- State v. Golden, 171 Ga. App. 27 (Court of Appeals decision that LaFontaine’s fifth factor originally tracked)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (standard for reasonable, articulable suspicion for stops)