211 N.C. App. 109
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Checkpoint at the intersection of the 800 block of South Main Street and the 800 block of Old Winston Road in Kernersville, NC, operated approximately July 6–7, 2007 from 11:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. with multiple agencies to determine compliance with the Motor Vehicle Code and reduce impaired driving.
- Officer Griffith created and supervised a Checking Station Plan derived from a Governor's Highway Safety Program standard plan, which directed stopping every vehicle and requesting license, registration, and destination information.
- Defendant drove a Pontiac Bonneville to the checkpoint, was stopped, and Deputy Moore detected an odor of alcohol and learned of missing beer bottles from a six-pack.
- Defendant admitted drinking earlier, exited the vehicle, and Deputy Bracken observed a plastic bag containing a substance that appeared to be marijuana as defendant removed items from his pockets.
- A search of defendant and the vehicle yielded marijuana, a glass pipe, a lighter, and additional contraband; a K-9 unit was brought to assist in the search.
- Defendant was arrested and later pled guilty to possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, carrying a concealed weapon, and maintaining a vehicle/dwelling for keeping and selling controlled substances; he reserved appellate rights on suppressive issues, and two suppression motions were filed (the first denied; the second not ruled) with the second later deemed abandoned on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the checkpoint's primary programmatic purpose lawful? | Nolan argues the checkpoint served broader crime control or drug interdiction beyond impaired driving. | Nolan contends the primary purpose was impermissible multi-use. | Yes; primary purpose to detect impaired driving; plan supported. |
| Was the checkpoint reasonable under the Brown framework? | State argues the three Brown factors are satisfied by the plan and conduct. | Nolan contends the checkpoint was not narrowly tailored and burdens liberty unnecessarily. | Yes; Brown factors satisfied; reasonable checkpoint. |
| Was the second motion to suppress properly before the appellate court? | State concedes second motion not properly before due to lack of ruling under Rule 10(b)(1). | Nolan attempts to challenge the second motion's scope and rationale. | Second motion abandoned/not properly before us; preserved issues limited to checkpoint. |
| Do the trial court's findings of fact support the suppression ruling? | Court findings show compliance with the plan and lawful operation. | Argues potential mischaracterization of the checkpoint's purpose and operations. | Yes; findings supported the denial of the first motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veazey, 191 N.C.App. 181, 662 S.E.2d 683 (2008) (three Brown prongs; tailoring and reasonableness of checkpoints)
- State v. Rose, 170 N.C.App. 284, 612 S.E.2d 336 (2005) (seizure at checkpoint must be reasonable)
- State v. Jarrett, N.C.App. , 692 S.E.2d 420 (2010) (two-prong Brown analysis; three Brown factors review)
- State v. Gabriel, 192 N.C.App. 517, 665 S.E.2d 581 (2008) (primary purpose and reasonableness framework for checkpoints)
- Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (three-factor test balancing public interest and intrusion)