State v. Brown
315 Ga. App. 154
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- The Cobb County Police Department set up a traffic safety checkpoint on Groover Road in response to a precinct complaint about speeding, racing, and littering.
- Sgt. Marchetta, a supervisor, decided to implement the roadblock several days before and supervised its operation.
- Only two officers manned the checkpoint: Marchetta as supervisor and Smith as screener; both wore vests and used marked cones.
- Brown approached the checkpoint at about 7:05 p.m.; Smith detected marijuana odor and observed a large folding knife on Brown.
- Brown was removed, combatively resisted, and marijuana was found during a subsequent search; Brown faced multiple charges including VGCSA and DUI.
- The trial court suppressed the evidence, basing its ruling on LaFontaine factors, including who made the decision and staffing; on appeal, the State argued the roadblock complied with LaFontaine and related precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the roadblock was programmatically authorized by a supervisor | Brown argues the decision was made in the field, not by a supervisor. | State argues Marchetta had supervisory authority and authorized the roadblock in advance. | Yes; roadblock decisions were made by a supervisor, not a field officer, satisfying LaFontaine. |
| Whether the roadblock was sufficiently staffed under LaFontaine | Brown contends the roadblock was undermanned under LaFontaine’s requirements. | State argues staffing level was adequate for the roadway and allowed by policy. | No error; staffing alone does not render the stop unconstitutional; under two officers the roadblock was valid. |
| Whether use of the same officer as supervisor, screen, and follow-up officer invalidates the checkpoint | Brown relies on policy suggesting separation of roles. | Policy allows a supervising officer to participate as screening/other roles in certain circumstances. | Error to suppress; supervising officer may also perform screening roles. |
| Whether the appellant’s arrest was independent of the roadblock’s constitutionality | Suppression should apply if roadblock invalid. | If roadblock valid, evidence obtained is admissible. | Roadblock valid; suppression reversed as to the evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- LaFontaine v. State, 269 Ga. 251 (Ga. 1998) (roadblock requirements: supervisor decision; uniform stopping; minimal delay; proper screening; trained screening officer)
- Owens v. State, 308 Ga.App. 374 (Ga. App. 2011) (high level of programmatic evaluation for roadblocks)
- Jacobs v. State, 308 Ga.App. 117 (Ga. App. 2011) (supervisor authority to plan/implement roadblocks; field/officer distinction)
- Gonzalez v. State, 289 Ga.App. 549 (Ga. App. 2008) (supervisor may participate in roadblock; does not become field officer)
- Brown v. State, 245 Ga.App. 706 (Ga. App. 2000) (two officers at roadblock not inherently unconstitutional)
- Miller v. State, 288 Ga. 286 (Ga. 2010) (clearly erroneous standard of review in suppression rulings)