333 Ga. App. 875
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Kyle Moss was stopped at a Cobb County traffic safety checkpoint and charged with two counts of DUI; he was convicted after a stipulated-facts bench trial.
- Moss moved to suppress, arguing the checkpoint program lacked a valid programmatic purpose other than general crime control per Georgia Supreme Court precedent.
- The trial court found the programmatic purpose was to check licenses, driver condition, and vehicle registration, and denied the motion to suppress.
- The State did not introduce the department’s written checkpoint policy at the suppression hearing, though the policy was discussed and referenced.
- The State introduced a two-page Safety Checkpoint Log completed by the supervising road sergeant and the sergeant testified that road officers’ sole purpose for checkpoints was checking licenses and insurance.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the sergeant’s testimony together with the checkpoint log provided some evidence that the checkpoint program’s primary purpose was traffic-safety related rather than general crime control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State showed the checkpoint program had a programmatic purpose other than general crime control | Moss: State failed to prove programmatic purpose; no written policy admitted and Williams/Brown require programmatic proof | State: Testimony and checkpoint log show programmatic limitation to license/insurance checks (traffic safety) | Affirmed — testimony + log provided some evidence supporting traffic-safety purpose |
| Whether absence of written policy is fatal to programmatic showing | Moss: Without written policy, cannot establish limitations on programmatic purpose | State: Written policy not required; other evidence (training, records, testimony) can suffice | Affirmed — written policy helpful but not required; other evidence may suffice |
| Proper standard of review for trial court’s factual finding | Moss: Trial court’s finding must be clearly supported | State: Defer to trial court if any evidence supports finding | Affirmed — deferential review: any evidence supporting finding is enough |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 293 Ga. 883 (Supreme Court of Ga.) (programmatic purpose requirement for checkpoints)
- Brown v. State, 293 Ga. 787 (Supreme Court of Ga.) (same day decision clarifying programmatic-level inquiry)
- State v. Brown, 315 Ga. App. 154 (Ga. Ct. App.) (prior Cobb County checkpoint discussion and policy text)
- Armentrout v. State, 332 Ga. App. 370 (Ga. Ct. App.) (no programmatic evidence where neither testimony nor written policy introduced)
- Davis v. State, 287 Ga. 414 (Supreme Court of Ga.) (judicial notice of other cases requires explicit action)