State v. Conner
322 Ga. App. 636
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Around 1:00 a.m., Cobb County police set up a traffic-safety checkpoint on Shiloh Road to check licenses, seat belts, insurance, and other violations; six marked patrol cars with flashing blue lights and ~10 officers in reflective vests staffed the checkpoint.
- Conner was stopped shortly after 3:00 a.m.; a screening officer smelled alcohol during a license check and arrested him for DUI.
- Conner moved to suppress evidence obtained from the stop, arguing the checkpoint was not “well identified as a police checkpoint.”
- At the suppression hearing two officers testified; they agreed as to lights, vehicles, and vests but disagreed about whether cones were used.
- The trial court credited the absence of cones and the lack of signs, granted the suppression motion, and the State appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the checkpoint met LaFontaine’s "well identified" requirement and reversed the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Conner's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the roadblock was “well identified as a police checkpoint” under LaFontaine | Lack of cones and signs meant the checkpoint was not well identified | Significant visible police presence (marked cars with flashing lights; officers in reflective vests) made the checkpoint well identified | Reversed: totality of circumstances showed the checkpoint was well identified as a matter of law |
| Whether absence of cones or signs alone renders a checkpoint unlawful | Absence of such items renders identification inadequate | No single item is required; cones/signs are relevant but not mandatory | Rejected notion that any one missing item (cones/signs) invalidates a checkpoint |
| Whether subjective ability of a distant driver to discern the checkpoint controls the analysis | Officer’s uncertainty about a distant driver’s perception undermines identification | Objective factors govern identification, not speculative perceptions | Court declined to elevate subjective, speculative perception over objective factors |
| Proper analytical framework to determine “well identified” | Trial court relied on discrete items rather than overall circumstances | Court should apply an objective totality-of-the-circumstances test consistent with LaFontaine | Court adopts totality-of-circumstances (objective) analysis to decide whether a checkpoint is well identified |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan Dep’t. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (upheld constitutionality of DUI checkpoints under Fourth Amendment and emphasized visibility and reduced intrusion)
- LaFontaine v. State, 269 Ga. 251 (1998) (established minimum prerequisites for lawful roadblocks)
- Phillips v. State, 287 Ga. 560 (2010) (considered visibility of roadblock at a distance in evaluating identification)
- Baker v. State, 252 Ga. App. 695 (2001) (discussed limits on using totality analysis to excuse missing LaFontaine factors)
- Cater v. State, 280 Ga. App. 891 (2006) (found checkpoint lawful based on marked cars, lights, and officers in uniform/vests)
- Harwood v. State, 262 Ga. App. 818 (2003) (upheld checkpoint identified by flashing lights and officers in uniform)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (totality-of-circumstances test for investigative stops)
- United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975) (noting motorists can see other stops and visible signs of officers’ authority, reducing surprise and fear)