State v. Vickery, 732 S.E.2d 218

Officers conducted a license checkpoint at New Market St. and Milwee Ave. in Greenwood, SC, between 9 p.m. on April 25 and 3 a.m. on April 26, 2009.
Vickery was detained at the checkpoint, where methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia were later found in his vehicle.
Four nearby checkpoints that night produced 56 violations (48 traffic, 8 criminal).
Vickery was indicted for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and for possession near a school; he moved to suppress evidence as Fourth Amendment violation.
The trial court suppressed all evidence and statements from Vickery, holding inadequate empirical data to justify the checkpoint under Brown v. Texas; the State appealed the suppression order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether empirical data is required to justify a license checkpoint under Brown v. Texas.	Vickery argues no adequate empirical data supports the checkpoint.	State contends Sitz requires empirical support, but some data suffice to justify location and effectiveness.	Reversed: empirical data requirement satisfied; checkpoint upheld.

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (U.S. 1979) (three-part Brown balancing test for checkpoints)
Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1990) (empirical data requirement retained; effectiveness considered)
Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1979) (license checks permissible; random stops require caution)
Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1976) (immigration checkpoints deemed reasonable under limited intrusion)
Groome, 378 S.C. 615 (S.C. 2008) (state must present evidence on effectiveness of checkpoint; Brown's second prong analyzed)
Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1990) (reverse reasonableness when considering effectiveness in balancing)
Norwood v. Bain, 143 F.3d 843 (4th Cir. 1998) (caution on extent of testing; post-stop review of discretion)
United States v. Brugal, 209 F.3d 353 (4th Cir. 2000) (checkpoints and initial stop analysis)