McCOY v. THE STATE
341 Ga. App. 216
Ga. Ct. App.2017Background
- Latisha McCoy was convicted after a bench trial for DUI (marijuana) following a stop at a Henry County police roadblock.
- McCoy moved to suppress evidence, claiming the roadblock stop was an unconstitutional warrantless seizure because the screening officer lacked sufficient training/experience under LaFontaine.
- At the suppression hearing the screening officer did not testify; only the supervising sergeant testified that screening officers were POST-certified via Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).
- The trial court found all officers present were POST-certified and concluded POST certification provided sufficient training/experience for a screening officer to decide who should receive field sobriety tests.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the LaFontaine factors (decision by supervisors, stop all vehicles, minimal delay, visible checkpoint, and screening officer qualifications) and addressed only the fifth factor here (screening officer’s qualifications).
- The Court affirmed, holding judicial notice and precedent support that POST certification supplies the minimal training/experience required to make an initial intoxication determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the screening officer had sufficient training/experience under LaFontaine | McCoy: POST certification alone is insufficient to meet LaFontaine’s fifth factor; need evidence of specific DUI/sobriety training or experience | State: Officers were POST-certified; POST provides necessary basic training to evaluate intoxication, and judicial notice supports that | Court: POST certification suffices as the minimal training/experience required for a screening officer; suppression denied |
| Whether State met its burden to justify a checkpoint stop under Edmond/LaFontaine | McCoy: Checkpoint was unconstitutional if any LaFontaine factor not satisfied | State: Checkpoint complied with programmatic and implementation requirements; only fifth factor contested and satisfied via POST evidence | Court: State met its burden on the contested factor; overall reasonableness not undermined here |
Key Cases Cited
- LaFontaine v. State, 269 Ga. 251 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (sets LaFontaine five-factor test for checkpoints)
- Williams v. State, 293 Ga. 883 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (explains programmatic primary-purpose and LaFontaine requirements)
- Brown v. State, 293 Ga. 787 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (totality-of-circumstances reasonableness beyond LaFontaine)
- Miller v. State, 288 Ga. 286 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (appellate review principles for suppression rulings)
- Golden v. State, 171 Ga. App. 27 (Georgia Court of Appeals) (earlier decision finding screening officer’s training/experience sufficient)
- Knight v. State, 271 Ga. 557 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (lay testimony about perceived intoxication is admissible)
- Graham v. State, 275 Ga. 290 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (judicial notice doctrine; economy of proof)
- Edmond v. City of Indianapolis, 531 U.S. 32 (U.S. Supreme Court) (framework limiting checkpoints that are ordinary crime control)
- Hurt v. State, 307 Ga. App. 316 (Georgia Court of Appeals) (post-certified officers and DUI training upheld for checkpoint qualification)