Groome - S.C. Supreme Court invalidates "driver's license checkpoint"
Roadblocks in my opinion are unconstitutional. Period. The National Motorists Association says it best:
We oppose the use of roadblocks, period. The only justification for stopping citizens under a roadblock scenario is to warn them of an unseen peril that could cause injury or death to an unsuspecting motorist. So-called "sobriety check points," or seat belt checks, or the myriad of other excuses the government concocts to harass and intimidate its citizens through the use of roadblocks are, in our opinion unconstitutional and in direct contradiction to any honest definition of freedom.
Since the United States Supreme Court does not yet agree, we will have to settle for requiring law enforcement to jump through hoops to demonstrate that their roadblocks are not really for the purpose of general crime control. The S.C. Supreme Court in State v. Groome, decided June 30, held law enforcement to the standards required by Brown v. Texas, City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, and Michigan State Police v. Sitz, and upheld the suppression of evidence by the trial court on the basis that the roadblock was violative of the Fourth Amendment.
In Brown v. Texas in 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Texas statute allowing police to detain citizens and require them to identify themselves violated the Fourth Amendment because it allowed the detentions without any reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. It also set forth a three part balancing test for determining the constitutionality of seizures by law enforcement: 1) a weighing of the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure; 2) the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and 3) the severity of the interference with individual liberty.
In 1990 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Michigan State Police v. Sitz that the Brown v. Texas balancing test applies to roadblocks, and, although it reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals and found the roadblock valid, it arguably upheld the requirement that "the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest" must be demonstrated by showing the "effectiveness" of the roadblock.
In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a checkpoint whose primary purpose is to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing is unconstitutional.
In Groome, the S.C. Supreme Court held that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that the primary purpose of the roadblock was crime suppression rather than merely a driver's license checkpoint, in that:
1) the checkpoint was conducted by the Directed Patrol Unit, which is assigned specifically to deal with crime suppression issues;2) a K-9 patrol unit with a nationally certified drug dog team was participating; and,
3) the State presented no evidence as to the plan, procedures, or duration of the roadblock, nor was any evidence of a protocol introduced and as the Supreme Court noted in Edmond, without such information “law enforcement authorities would be able to establish checkpoints for virtually any purpose so long as they include a license or sobriety check.”
The Court held that even if the purpose of the roadblock was not general crime suppression, the roadblock was invalid under Brown v. Texas' second requirement because no empirical data was presented at trial to support the effectiveness of the roadblock.
One thing that is disappointing about this case is that the Court did not rule (possibly because the attorneys did not raise the issue) that our State Constitutional protections are separate and independent grounds for their holding. On remand the Michigan Court of Appeals re-affirmed their original ruling in Michigan State Police v. Sitz, and found the checkpoint to be unconstitutional, this time under the Michigan Constitution instead of the Federal Constitution.
Judge Hill was the trial judge, and he as well as the S.C. Supreme Court deserve praise for having the courage to rule against the government in preserving our constitutional rights. However, all roadblocks should be declared unconstitutional, in violation of the South Carolina Constitutional right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and as a violation of the right to privacy which is guaranteed by the S.C. Constitution.
Roadblocks are one of the most arrogant and disgusting violations of our privacy and freedom, and Groome, if the U.S. Supreme Court does not overturn it, will help "to assure that an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is not subject to arbitrary invasions solely at the unfettered discretion of officers in the field."
