Charles Edward Ogburn, Jr. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/29/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 CR-11-0085 C h a r l e s Edward Ogburn, J r . v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal BURKE, from E l m o r e D i s t r i c t (TR-11-5783) Court Ogburn, h i sc o n v i c t i o nf o r Judge. Charles Edward driving under t h e i n f l u e n c e 191(a), A l a . Code the county j a i l , 1975. J r . , appeals ("DUI"), a v i o l a t i o n O g b u r n was s e n t e n c e d which sentence the t r i a l court o f § 32-5A- t o 90 d a y s i n suspended, and CR-11-0085 he was placed ordered July checkpoint was probation t o p a y a $600 On he on 2, 2011, i n rural approached Trooper Salvador vehicle. driver's license Salvador extended whether was Elmore County. by Alabama State proof of was traffic O g b u r n was stopped, Eric of a l c o h o l asked insurance. Trooper Salvador. coming Ogburn At Salvador asked and Ogburn t h a t he h a d d r a n k " a c o u p l e . " (R. 2 0 . ) Trooper Trooper the to p u l l Salvador the parking testified that Ogburn responded Salvador l o t of a nearby Ogburn appeared then store. t o be u n d e r influence of alcohol. Concerning was stopped at the procedures after would ask the driver proof license t h a t were the checkpoint, that, and into point, containers i nthe alcohol, Ogburn from forhis that drinking asked also a n o t i c e d some u n o p e n e d b e e r had been at Trooper Salvador cab of Ogburn's t r u c k . he Ogburn stopped After the smell Trooper and years. a n d t o a t t e n d DUI s c h o o l . Ogburn noticed Ogburn's Trooper fine for 2 a vehicle pulled and p r o o f Salvador up t o t h e c h e c k p o i n t , to present of insurance. Trooper u s e d when a of insurance 2 testified an h i s or her d r i v e r ' s I f the driver vehicle could produce and i f t h e o f f i c e r officer license a valid d i d not CR-11-0085 suspect the that vehicle Defense was that that?" did you of our l o c a l (R. 24.) sir." have Trooper Trooper and d i s c r e t i o n everybody, under the i n f l u e n c e through Salvador circuit alcohol, the checkpoint. t o i t and you judges, notice d i d you have t h e t o w a v e t h e m on t h r o u g h a n d n o t a s k Trooper (R. 25.) the of S a l v a d o r : " I f an a u t o m o b i l e i s t h e r o a d b l o c k a n d comes up i t ' s one authority was allowed to proceed counsel asked approaching for the d r i v e r Salvador responded: Defense discretion responded: to counsel then wave "Yes, them " I ' d check asked: through?" s i r . I would "But (Id.) assume so." (Id.) After store, he Ogburn was Kenneth Day. Trooper Day admitted pulled into approached by the parking another l o t of the Alabama State Trooper, T r o o p e r Day s m e l l e d a l c o h o l i n O g b u r n ' s asked Ogburn i f he h a d b e e n d r i n k i n g , t h a t he h a d d r u n k alcohol earlier nearby vehicle. and t h a t day. Ogburn Trooper Day o b s e r v e d t h a t O g b u r n ' s e y e s w e r e r e d , i . e . , b l o o d s h o t , a n d that h i s breath smelled l i k e observations, Trooper sobriety Day he told testified tests, he alcohol. Ogburn that to get after determined 3 Based that out on T r o o p e r of the performing Ogburn was Day's vehicle. four field- under the CR-11-0085 influence DUI and Ogburn of alcohol. took was Trooper him to Trooper the using At t r i a l , Corporal State a a Draeger Ogburn's b l o o d - a l c o h o l Alabama (R. However, testimony further testified w h i c h O g b u r n was main duty t h a t stated that conducted drunk t h a t he was device. over was field the 4th asked: Corporal The test the troopers regards the any to have establishing Thornton answered: d i d not policies. give Corporal Corporal supervision. of July Thornton Thornton Corporal weekend, i n an determined troopers effort the to chose of the checkpoint safety and the traveled area. Corporal the Thornton 4 location testified Corporal was in that deter location t h a t he location at Thornton the stated that further Thornton's stopped. fact do." i n v o l v e d w i t h the checkpoint a t w h i c h O g b u r n was on the "We any the checkpoint the by a supervisor with "Do several sobriety checkpoints driving. jail, .14. s t o p p e d on J u l y 2, 2 0 1 1 . day the revealed Thornton those At brand Corporal concerning jail. for test Thornton, Corporal a r r e s t e d Ogburn breath-alcohol-analysis Jesse in 6.) County t o be policies checkpoint?" then level T r o o p e r s , was established (Id.) Elmore administered Day Day of Thornton based on a heavily the purpose CR-11-0085 of the checkpoint drivers and to violations. visible was to check Thornton to motorists; that without were able causing and that equipment to warn Corporal Thornton checkpoint were flashlights. motorists the of stated motorists that the Thornton of stated that the through the State documented Corporal signed by the officers the of vehicles July 2 a of checkpoint. working and at were that the using approaching and t h a t the form l o c a t i o n f o r the checkpoint Trail i n Elmore County. Corporal every "vehicle checkpoint. approved The flashing. traffic emergency the vests at the flow typical testified stopped introduced Thornton him. were of was blue checkpoint. The vehicles to troopers reflective insurance stopped stream used see t h e t r o o p e r s ' lights were the impaired the l o c a t i o n interruption oncoming Corporal the out by and/or that that troopers wearing could stated to p u l l caused license vehicles significant traffic; crashes for driver's Corporal checkpoint deter vehicle that came checkpoint" form that form stated that and the form was The the checkpoint, further Thornton stated that the approved was on F r i e n d s h i p R o a d a t C h e r o k e e The form 5 stated that the checkpoint CR-11-0085 started a t 9:00 p.m. and ended a t 1 1 : 0 0 p.m. and t h a t t h e w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s d u r i n g t h e c h e c k p o i n t were c l e a r The form also checkpoint Lastly, Salvador. was c r e a t e d a f t e r and the o f f i c e r s and t h e enforcement checkpoint. Trooper listed location t h e form the checkpoint of the checkpoint judgment The of a c q u i t t a l . defense found rested that Ogburn sentenced, he w a i v e d the Elmore District was that occurred at the testified before moved denied that any t e s t i m o n y . DUI. to a jury stop have been s u p p r e s s e d After violated Amendment his constitutional to the United The F o u r t h provides: 1 "The States Amendment right he s a y s , rights and of the people 6 was Court. i n this case the checkpoint 1 States t o be s e c u r e court appealed to this under Constitution. to the United motion. Ogburn trial judgment d i r e c t l y because, for a The t r i a l On a p p e a l , O g b u r n a l l e g e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e should started. Ogburn court of assigned to the checkpoint i t s case, his right by t h a t the form and t h e o f f i c e r s guilty Court's to the had ended but t h a t t h e time The t r i a l d i d not present assigned s t a t e d t h a t i t was s u b m i t t e d C o r p o r a l Thornton the State were activity the c h e c k p o i n t were d e t e r m i n e d After who a n d warm. the Fourth Ogburn argues Constitution i n their CR-11-0085 that the initial State the Specifically, v. the Ogburn S t a t e d i d not prove out p u r s u a n t on c a r r y i t s burden s t o p a t t h e c h e c k p o i n t was Amendment. that d i d not reasonable argues, t h a t the of 443 officers," U.S. 51 was as (1979). State meet of although policies the State presented concerning the details whether contained limitations brief, policies on Ogburn the conduct of because, t h a t the establishment S t a t e d i d n o t p r e s e n t any the proof evidence "carried Brown Concerning s t o p , Ogburn argues i t s burden Fourth r e q u i r e d by of h i s c h e c k p o i n t not his neutral limitations reasonableness did that under the checkpoint individual 47 , proving among o t h e r t h i n g s , to a p l a n embodying e x p l i c i t , conduct Texas, of of individual that he the says, troopers have checkpoints, the of those p o l i c i e s , any the explicit, officers. including neutral In his states: persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, s h a l l not be violated, and no w a r r a n t s shall issue, but upon p r o b a b l e c a u s e , s u p p o r t e d by o a t h o r a f f i r m a t i o n , and particularly describing the place to be s e a r c h e d , a n d t h e p e r s o n s o r t h i n g s t o be s e i z e d . " The U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t t h e p r o t e c t i o n s o f t h e F o u r t h Amendment e x t e n d t o t h e s t a t e s t h r o u g h the operation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth A m e n d m e n t . Mapp v . Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Wolf v. C o l o r a d o , 338 U.S. 25 (1949). 7 CR-11-0085 " O n l y T r o o p e r T h o r n t o n was q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t t h e p o l i c y t h a t m i g h t h a v e e x i s t e d . T h o r n t o n was asked two q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n y p o l i c y , 'Do t h e T r o o p e r s have any e s t a b l i s h e d p o l i c i e s i n r e g a r d to e s t a b l i s h i n g the c h e c k p o i n t ? ' (R 6) t o w h i c h he answered, 'We do,' and 'Did you have a policy r e g a r d i n g w h a t v e h i c l e s w e r e t o be s t o p p e d a t t h e checkpoint?' ( E m p h a s i s a d d e d ) (R 12) W h e t h e r t h e s e q u e s t i o n s were i n t e n d e d to e l i c i t t e s t i m o n y t h a t the D e p a r t m e n t of P u b l i c S a f e t y had a g e n e r a l p l a n and policy for a l l roadblocks or whether they were i n t e n d e d t o e l i c i t t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e r e was a p l a n or p o l i c y for this particular roadblock, is not c l e a r . However, i t i s c l e a r t h a t the answer g i v e n to t h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n was r e l a t e d o n l y t o t h e J u l y 2, 2011, r o a d b l o c k . ' T h i s p a r t i c u l a r c h e c k p o i n t , I can testify t h a t we checked every v e h i c l e t h a t came t h r o u g h t h e r e . ' (R 12) F u r t h e r m o r e , a c l o s e a n a l y s i s o f T r o o p e r T h o r n t o n ' s a n s w e r s show t h a t he d i d n o t e v e n t e s t i f y t h a t t h e r u l e o r p o l i c y f o r t h e J u l y 2, 2 0 1 1 , r o a d b l o c k was t o c h e c k e v e r y v e h i c l e , he o n l y t e s t i f i e d that they checked every v e h i c l e . " Ogburn's b r i e f , at Concerning present Ogburn's evidence pursuant 25-26. showing contention that the to a p l a n embodying e x p l i c i t , argue t h a t Ogburn f a i l e d review. State's first Ogburn's and stop moved t o brief, attempted at the suppress to the not carried out on first issue for appellate However, at t r i a l , evidence Ogburn's evidence, 8 was did neutral limitations this introduce checkpoint, State the State appears to to preserve at 23-26. the checkpoint the conduct of i n d i v i d u a l o f f i c e r s , State that attorney stating: when the concerning objected CR-11-0085 "I'm g o i n g to object at this point f o r the r e a s o n t h a t t h e o n l y way t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e c a n come i n i s i f i t has been e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e r o a d b l o c k was r e a s o n a b l e a n d met a l l U.S. S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e s . And i t i s o u r p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e S t a t e h a s n o t done t h a t a n d h a s c o m p l e t e l y f a i l e d t o make t h a t s h o w i n g . I t h i n k t h e C o u r t i s w e l l aware o f t h e c a s e s t h a t s a y t h a t a l l r o a d b l o c k s a r e p r e s u m e d t o be u n l a w f u l u n l e s s a n d u n t i l t h e S t a t e p r o d u c e s e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t t h e y a r e -- m e e t a l l t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s . And t h e S t a t e h a s n o t shown t h a t . They h a v e n o t shown i t a t all. They h a v e n ' t introduced a policy for this p a r t i c u l a r roadblock or a p o l i c y i n general of the Alabama S t a t e Troopers. So we w o u l d o b j e c t a s t h e p r e d i c a t e h a s n ' t been l a i d f o r t h e t e s t i m o n y that O f f i c e r Salvador i s g i v i n g . " (R. 18-19.) The The t r i a l denied that objection. o b j e c t i o n was made when t h e S t a t e introduce the evidence checkpoint, alleged and failure checkpoint. preserve the court obtained the objection of the State Therefore, from attempted to Ogburn's specifically to introduce this first objection (R. 19.) stop at the referenced a policy was f o rthe sufficient Ogburn's argument t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o prove checkpoint explicit, was c a r r i e d neutral out pursuant to a p o l i c y limitations on the conduct the to that embodying of individual The S t a t e a l s o a r g u e s t h a t O g b u r n ' s c o n t e n t i o n i s without officers. merit. State's brief, at 26-33. contends: 9 Specifically, the State CR-11-0085 " I n C a i n s [ v . S t a t e , 555 So. 2 d 290 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) ] , t h i s Court s t a t e d , 'In our judgment, roadblocks operated pursuant t o an o b j e c t i v e and n e u t r a l p l a n of b r i e f l y h a l t i n g a l l oncoming t r a f f i c are only minimally intrusive to the individual m o t o r i s t and a r e t h u s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y reasonable s e i z u r e s . ' I d . a t 2 9 6 . When a v e h i c l e was s t o p p e d a t the c h e c k p o i n t , the o f f i c e r s requested the d r i v e r to produce h i s or her d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e and proofo f - i n s u r a n c e . (R. 23) I f t h e d r i v e r p r o d u c e d a v a l i d d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e and c u r r e n t p r o o f - o f - i n s u r a n c e , and the o f f i c e r s ' d i d n ' t s u s p e c t t h a t t h e y were under the i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l , ' the d r i v e r c o n t i n u e d on h i s o r h e r way. (R. 24) W h i l e i t i s t r u e , a s O g b u r n argues, that Trooper Salvador testified that he 'would assume' t h a t the o f f i c e r s had the d i s c r e t i o n to permit a l o c a l c i r c u i t judge to pass through the checkpoint without s u b m i t t i n g to a d r i v e r l i c e n s e and p r o o f - o f - i n s u r a n c e c h e c k , T r o o p e r S a l v a d o r a l s o s a i d , ' I ' d c h e c k e v e r y b o d y . ' (R. 2 4 - 2 5 ) I n d e e d , t h e reality i s that every car that approached the c h e c k p o i n t was s t o p p e d . (R. 1 1 - 1 2 ) "The t r o o p e r s ' testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the c h e c k p o i n t was 'operated pursuant t o an o b j e c t i v e and n e u t r a l p l a n o f b r i e f l y h a l t i n g a l l oncoming traffic,' was 'only minimally intrusive to the i n d i v i d u a l m o t o r i s t , ' a n d was t h u s ' c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y reasonable.' C a i n s , 555 So. 2d a t 2 9 6 . Therefore, Ogburn's c l a i m t h a t the S t a t e f a i l e d to prove t h a t t h e c h e c k p o i n t was reasonable u n d e r t h e Brown[ v. T e x a s , 443 U.S. 47 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , ] t e s t f a i l s . " State's brief, The State at 31-33. further contends: "First, the State did establish that [the D e p a r t m e n t of P u b l i c S a f e t y ] had a p o l i c y r e g a r d i n g checkpoints. (R. 6) M o r e o v e r , as d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , t h e c h e c k p o i n t i n t h i s c a s e was r e a s o n a b l e . I t was e s t a b l i s h e d to deter drunk d r i v i n g , a legitimate 10 CR-11-0085 public i n t e r e s t ; i t was a reasonable method of a d v a n c i n g t h e S t a t e ' s l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t ; and i t was operated pursuant t o a n e u t r a l and o b j e c t i v e plan that caused minimal i n t r u s i o n to those d r i v e r s who w e r e r e q u i r e d t o s t o p . T h u s , w h i l e t h e S t a t e d i d not p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e s p e c i f i c a l l y s e t t i n g out t h a t [the Department of P u b l i c S a f e t y ] had a written p o l i c y c o n c e r n i n g t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t and c o n d u c t o f s o b r i e t y c h e c k p o i n t s or the d e t a i l s of the policy that did exist, the t r i a l court properly denied Ogburn's o b j e c t i o n to the evidence stemming from h i s initial stop at the checkpoint. See Stone[ v. S t a t e ] , 705 So. 2d [ 1 3 1 6 , ] 1319 [(Ala. Crim. App. 1996)]. Therefore, this Court should affirm the judgment of the t r i a l c o u r t . " State's brief, at Concerning 40-41. the constitutionality checkpoint, i n Ex the Supreme C o u r t Alabama parte Jackson, 886 So. of a stop 2d 155 at (Ala. 2004), stated: " ' [ S ] t o p p i n g an a u t o m o b i l e and d e t a i n i n g i t s occupants c o n s t i t u t e a " s e i z u r e " w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f [ t h e F o u r t h and Fourteenth] Amendments, even t h o u g h the p u r p o s e of the s t o p i s l i m i t e d and t h e r e s u l t i n g d e t e n t i o n quite brief.' " D e l a w a r e v . P r o u s e , 440 U.S. 1 3 9 1 , 59 L. E d . 2 d 660 (1979). 648, 653, 99 S. Ct. " I n B r o w n v . T e x a s , 443 U.S. 4 7 , 99 S. C t . 2 6 3 7 , 61 L. E d . 2 d 357 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , t h e Supreme C o u r t c r e a t e d a three-prong b a l a n c i n g t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g whether a s e i z u r e i s c o n s i d e r e d r e a s o n a b l e . In t h a t case, t h e q u e s t i o n was w h e t h e r t h e o f f i c e r s ' d e t e n t i o n o f a p e d e s t r i a n , who, i n v i o l a t i o n of a Texas s t a t u t e , 11 a CR-11-0085 refused to 'seizure.' identify himself, was an unreasonable "'Consideration of the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of s u c h s e i z u r e s i n v o l v e s a w e i g h i n g o f [1] the g r a v i t y of the p u b l i c concerns served b y t h e s e i z u r e , [2] t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e s e i z u r e advances t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , and [3] t h e s e v e r i t y o f t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h individual liberty.' "443 U.S. a t 5 0 - 5 1 , 99 S. C t . 2 6 3 7 . I n Michigan D e p a r t m e n t o f S t a t e P o l i c e v . S i t z , 496 U.S. 4 4 4 , 4 4 8 - 4 9 , 110 S. C t . 2 4 8 1 , 110 L. E d . 2 d 412 (1990), t h e Supreme C o u r t e x t e n d e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e s e three conditions beyond the t r a d i t i o n a l arrest s i t u a t i o n to roadblock-type stops, s p e c i f i c a l l y to 'sobriety checkpoints.' The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t has e x p l i c i t l y upheld roadblock-type stops against c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenges i n four s i t u a t i o n s -- s t o p s g a t h e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g a r e c e n t c r i m e i n t h e a r e a when t h e q u e s t i o n s a s k e d d u r i n g the stop did not seek self-incriminating information; stops checking driver's licenses; drivers' s o b r i e t y ; and t h e p r e s e n c e of illegal a l i e n s . S e e I l l i n o i s v . L i d s t e r , 540 U.S. 4 1 9 , 124 S. C t . 8 8 5 , 157 L. E d . 2 d 843 (2004 ) ; T e x a s v . B r o w n , 460 U.S. 7 3 0 , 103 S. C t . 1 5 3 5 , 75 L. E d . 2 d 502 (1983); Sitz, supra; and [ U n i t e d S t a t e s v.] M a r t i n e z - F u e r t e [ , 428 U.S. 543 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ] . The A l a b a m a Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals a b l y summarized the U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t p r e c e d e n t as t o t h i s i s s u e i n C a i n s v . S t a t e , 555 S o . 2 d 290 (1989): Generally, a s e i z u r e l e s s i n t r u s i v e than t r a d i t i o n a l a r r e s t i s reasonable i f based a on i n d i v i d u a l i z e d s u s p i c i o n , g a t h e r e d f r o m specific and a r t i c u l a t e facts, that the i n d i v i d u a l i s , or i s about t o be, engaged i n c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y , T e r r y v . O h i o [ , 392 U.S. 1 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ] ; s e e a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C o r t e z , 449 U.S. 4 1 1 , 4 1 7 , 101 S. C t . 6 9 0 , 12 CR-11-0085 694, 66 L. E d . 2d 621 (1981), or i f the s e i z u r e i s " c a r r i e d out p u r s u a n t to a p l a n e m b o d y i n g e x p l i c i t , n e u t r a l l i m i t a t i o n s on the c o n d u c t of i n d i v i d u a l o f f i c e r s , " Brown v . T e x a s , 443 U.S. 4 7 , 5 1 , 99 S. C t . 2 6 3 7 , 2 6 4 0 , 61 L. E d . 2 d 357 (1979). "'The n a t u r e of a r o a d b l o c k r e q u i r e s the s t o p p i n g of c a r s w i t h o u t i n d i v i d u a l i z e d suspicion of wrongdoing. Thus, i f a r o a d b l o c k s t o p i s t o be u p h e l d , i t m u s t be on t h e s e c o n d b a s i s , i . e . , b e c a u s e i t i s " c a r r i e d out pursuant to a p l a n embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers." In a series of decisions stemming from the immigration control cases, the United States Supreme Court has rejected the individualized s u s p i c i o n requirement for f i x e d , non-random a u t o m o b i l e c h e c k p o i n t s or roadblock stops, and instead has established some criteria for "a plan e m b o d y i n g e x p l i c i t , n e u t r a l l i m i t a t i o n s on the conduct of i n d i v i d u a l o f f i c e r s . " "'Four years [after the Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n D e l a w a r e v. P r o u s e , 440 U.S. 648 (1979)], the Court s p e c i f i c a l l y approved d r i v e r s ' license checkpoints in T e x a s v . B r o w n , 4 60 U.S. 7 3 0 , 103 S. C t . 1 5 3 5 , 75 L. E d . 2 d 502 (1983) .... "'When r e a d t o g e t h e r , [United States v . ] B r i g n o n i - P o n c e [ , 422 U.S. 873 (1975)], [ U n i t e d S t a t e s v.] M a r t i n e z - F u e r t e [ , 428 U.S. 543 (1 97 6 ) ] , Prouse, and Texas v. B r o w n [ , 460 U.S. 730 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , ] s t a n d f o r t h e proposition that random stops or spot checks are unreasonable i n the absence of i n d i v i d u a l i z e d s u s p i c i o n o f w r o n g d o i n g ; on 13 CR-11-0085 the o t h e r hand, stops a t f i x e d c h e c k p o i n t s or r o a d b l o c k s a r e r e a s o n a b l e i f they a r e carried out pursuant t o a n e u t r a l and o b j e c t i v e p l a n , a r e s u p p o r t e d by a s t r o n g public interest, and a r e o n l y m i n i m a l l y intrusive to the i n d i v i d u a l motorist.' "555 So. 2d a t 292-93 (emphasis added). "The U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t driver's license checkpoints satisfy the first f a c t o r -- t h a t ' t h e g r a v i t y o f t h e p u b l i c concerns s e r v e d b y t h e s e i z u r e ' o u t w e i g h t h e F o u r t h Amendment i n t e r e s t o f i n d i v i d u a l s . S e e B r o w n v . T e x a s , 443 U.S. a t 5 1 , 99 S. C t . 2 6 3 7 ; T e x a s v . B r o w n , s u p r a . A s f o r t h e s e c o n d f a c t o r -- ' t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e s e i z u r e a d v a n c e s t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t ' -- t h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e p u b l i c h a s an i n t e r e s t i n m a k i n g sure that d r i v e r s of v e h i c l e s are p r o p e r l y l i c e n s e d and that the v e h i c l e s they are driving are r e g i s t e r e d and equipped w i t h s a f e t y d e v i c e s . The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s s t a t e d i n H a g o o d [ v . Town o f Town C r e e k , 628 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 7 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1993)]: "'"The s t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t i n e n f o r c i n g i t s r e g i s t r a t i o n and l i c e n s i n g laws and t h e difficulty i n e n f o r c i n g t h e laws by any other method" ... [has] been held s u f f i c i e n t to outweigh a minor intrusion upon persons stopped at roadblocks conducted f o r [that] purpose[].' "628 So. 2d a t 1060. B e c a u s e t h e U n i t e d States Supreme Court i n Texas v. Brown, supra, has s p e c i f i c a l l y u p h e l d d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e c h e c k p o i n t s as advancing the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , thus s a t i s f y i n g the second factor, we must ensure that i n [the defendant]'s case the State s a t i s f i e d the t h i r d factor. 14 CR-11-0085 "To a n a l y z e t h e t h i r d f a c t o r -- ' t h e s e v e r i t y o f t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h i n d i v i d u a l l i b e r t y ' -- we m u s t determine whether the officers conducted the roadblock-type stop i n a neutral and objective manner. As t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s s t a t e d i n Cains: '[S]tops [of v e h i c l e s ] at f i x e d checkpoints or r o a d b l o c k s a r e r e a s o n a b l e i f they a r e c a r r i e d out pursuant to a neutral and o b j e c t i v e plan, are s u p p o r t e d by a s t r o n g p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , and a r e o n l y m i n i m a l l y i n t r u s i v e t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l m o t o r i s t . ' 555 So. 2 d a t 2 9 3 . We m u s t d e t e r m i n e i f t h e s t o p i n Jackson's case was 'minimally i n t r u s i v e to the i n d i v i d u a l m o t o r i s t . ' The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s stated i n Cains[ v. S t a t e , 555 S o . 2 d 2 90 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1989),] t h a t ' t h e manner o f o p e r a t i o n and t h e p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a r o a d b l o c k , ' 555 So. 2 d a t 2 9 6 , a f f e c t t h e i n t r u s i v e n e s s o f t h e s t o p . The Court of Criminal Appeals then quoted a 13-factor a n a l y s i s a d o p t e d by t h e Kansas Supreme Court: " ' " ( 1 ) The d e g r e e o f d i s c r e t i o n , i f a n y , l e f t t o t h e o f f i c e r i n t h e f i e l d ; (2) the l o c a t i o n d e s i g n a t e d f o r the r o a d b l o c k ; (3) t h e t i m e a n d d u r a t i o n o f t h e r o a d b l o c k ; (4) s t a n d a r d s s e t b y s u p e r i o r o f f i c e r s ; (5) a d v a n c e n o t i c e t o t h e p u b l i c a t l a r g e ; (6) advance warning to the individual approaching motorist; (7) m a i n t e n a n c e o f safety conditions; (8) d e g r e e o f f e a r o r a n x i e t y g e n e r a t e d b y t h e mode o f o p e r a t i o n ; (9) a v e r a g e l e n g t h o f t i m e e a c h m o t o r i s t i s d e t a i n e d ; (10) p h y s i c a l f a c t o r s s u r r o u n d i n g the l o c a t i o n , t y p e and method o f o p e r a t i o n ; (11) the a v a i l a b i l i t y of l e s s i n t r u s i v e m e t h o d s f o r c o m b a t i n g t h e p r o b l e m ; (12) t h e degree of e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the procedure; and (13) a n y o t h e r r e l e v a n t circumstances w h i c h m i g h t b e a r upon t h e t e s t . " ' "555 S o . 2 d a t 296 ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v . D e s k i n s , 234 K a n . 5 2 9 , 5 4 1 , 673 P . 2 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 8 5 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ) . We a g r e e 15 CR-11-0085 w i t h t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s t h a t we should n o t e x a l t f o r m o v e r s u b s t a n c e a n d t h a t some o f t h e 13 factors outlined above are not p i v o t a l to determining whether a p a r t i c u l a r roadblock-type stop i s ' m i n i m a l l y i n t r u s i v e . ' However, t h o s e f a c t o r s a r e helpful considerations t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t when determining whether the o f f i c e r s conducted the stop p u r s u a n t t o an ' o b j e c t i v e standard.' "We also agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that because a roadblock-type stop to examine d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e s i s w a r r a n t l e s s and n o t b a s e d on an ' a r t i c u l a b l e a n d r e a s o n a b l e suspicion t h a t a m o t o r i s t i s u n l i c e n s e d o r t h a t an a u t o m o b i l e i s n o t r e g i s t e r e d , ' P r o u s e , 440 U.S. a t 6 6 3 , 99 S. Ct. 1391, t h e S t a t e has t h e burden o f p r o v i n g that it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. H a g o o d , 628 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 6 2 . " Ex parte In Jackson, 886 S o . 2 d a t 1 6 1 - 6 3 . H a g o o d v . Town o f Town Creek, 628 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 7 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1993), i n holding that unconstitutional, this found that with "unfettered" had conducted This Court written chief 628 found policy that i thighly could the police relevant have at issue that limited was officers discretion. there the was no officers' and t h i s Court found i t i r r e l e v a n t that the p o l i c e himself was o n e o f t h e o f f i c e r s i n the f i e l d . Hagood, So. 2d a t 1061-62. In of the roadblock also discretion, Court the roadblock the present proving the case, the State reasonableness 16 d i d not carry of the i t s burden checkpoint stop. CR-11-0085 Specifically, the the State d i d not present evidence c h e c k p o i n t was explicit, neutral officers." "carried limitations Although c h e c k p o i n t was highly r e a s o n a b l e , we not a mandatory See Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , 1318-19 were no written H a g o o d , 628 So. on App. the the of a in stop, was carried established objective and stop 705 So. 2d 1316, there the was factor, time of requirement the neutral field. 17 of evidence pursuant plan are t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n However, out the constitutional); of a r o a d b l o c k ) . present are although that at a checkpoint. (noting that written guidelines higher ranking personnel to l i m i t the individual d e c i d i n g whether State, place the reasonableness S t a t e must embodying of constitutional (holding reasonableness the to that find that written guidelines 1996) 2d a t 1061 to a p l a n conduct relevant guidelines checkpoint in the f a c t o r , " b u t o n l y one determining Amendment, pursuant s u p r a ; Stone v. checkpoint a "prominent satisfy requirement (Ala. Crim. defendant's out showing showing to that the conduct a was to Fourth that the previously designed of the by officers CR-11-0085 Although required by we hold today the Fourth that a Amendment, written we plan i s s t r o n g l y suggest having a previously e s t a b l i s h e d plan that i s i n writing the execution of the checkpoint previously established plan i s that before i s the best practice. written not I f no submitted into evidence, a w i t n e s s f o r t h e S t a t e must s p e c i f i c a l l y a r t i c u l a t e the details full limits the checkpoint of the discretion previously established plan of i n accordance the with individual Brown v. officers Texas, that at the 443 U.S. 47 no evidence (1979). In of the present written guidelines that discretion, explicit, there did policies i s no o t h e r or way of a plan that on t h e c o n d u c t the establishment any t e s t i m o n y concerning neutral limitations checkpoint. evidence placed of the o f f i c e r s . how concerning those on t h e c o n d u c t o f c h e c k p o i n t s , b u t he the substance policies placed actually carried 18 of those explicit, of the o f f i c e r s working the The S t a t e a l s o p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e the o f f i c e r s the o f f i c e r s ' t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e t r o o p e r s have e s t a b l i s h e d concerning not give not only i s there c o u l d have l i m i t e d neutral limitations Corporal Thornton policies situation, concerning the out the checkpoint i n the CR-11-0085 present case, concerning but the State whether checkpoint t h e way was i n a c c o r d a n c e neutral limitations no evidence g i v e n any p a r t i c u l a r concerning evidence of how with a plan that instructions they were explicit, There i s s i m p l y i n the f i e l d before the checkpoint to conduct the were began checkpoint The o n l y or specific c o n c e r n i n g t h e o f f i c e r s ' d i s c r e t i o n was t h e t e s t i m o n y Salvador every who vehicle through Furthermore, testified that passed the there official The checkpoint i s officers' discretion although through he i n f a c t the checkpoint, he to allow a c i r c u i t judge to without evidence being indicating stopped. that the was s u p e r v i s e d b y a n y t h a t was n o t i n t h e f i e l d . primary wrong i s unbridled Prouse, 440 essential no that, at the checkpoint prevent is out the embodying the o f f i c e r s a s s u m e d t h a t he h a d t h e d i s c r e t i o n pass evidence carried officers the extent of their discretion. Trooper stopped the any on t h e o f f i c e r s ' c o n d u c t . indicating concerning d i d not present U.S. 648, that the Fourth police Amendment discretion. 653-54 (1979) See (stating seeks to Delaware v. that purpose of the p r o s c r i p t i o n s i n the Fourth "[t]he Amendment t o impose a s t a n d a r d o f ' r e a s o n a b l e n e s s ' upon t h e e x e r c i s e 19 CR-11-0085 of discretion enforcement by agents, government i n order of (citation omitted). In the present any evidence of the limits discretion. Therefore, against arbitrary case, on was u n r e a s o n a b l e ; t h u s , t h e e v i d e n c e there should have been i s no e v i d e n c e suppressed. to support A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l a judgment o f a c q u i t t a l R E V E R S E D AND Windom, dissents, law t h e p r i v a c y and invasions"'") the State the f i e l d d i dnot officers' t h e w a r r a n t l e s s s t o p o f Ogburn a t t h e c h e c k p o i n t w i t h o u t any i n d i v i d u a l i z e d stop including '"to safeguard security present individuals officials, s u s p i c i o n of wrongdoing obtained pursuant Without Ogburn's that conviction to that evidence, f o r DUI. c o u r t ' s judgment and render f o r Ogburn. JUDGMENT RENDERED. P.J., and with opinion. Welch, J . , concur. Kellum, J., joins 20 Joiner, i n dissent. J., CR-11-0085 JOINER, I Judge, dissenting. respectfully opinion that checkpoint] majority "the stop conclusion--that proving is no evidence limitations as appropriate embodying individual on of the State did basis a to for plan explicit, neutral officers" that of the that law, the not to for Although the dissent from its its burden stop" because explicit, court, neutral on I note the a an "plan conduct operation of that "'"[w]hen evidence i s presented ore tenus t o the t r i a l c o u r t , t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t b a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e a r e p r e s u m e d t o be c o r r e c t , " E x p a r t e Perkins, 646 So. 2d 46, 47 (Ala. 1994); "[w]e indulge a presumption t h a t the t r i a l court p r o p e r l y r u l e d on the w e i g h t and probative force of the 21 the provided that of "there checkpoint. Initially, the and conclude limitations existed [the officers'"--because district court to facts carry placed the majority relevant I checkpoint conduct presented of pursuant summarizes the appropriate "the holding obtained reasonableness of the ... facts, the the have been s u p p r e s s e d . " correctly quotes from evidence should opinion correctly dissent of this CR-11-0085 evidence," B r a d l e y v . S t a t e , 494 S o . 2 d 7 5 0 , 7 6 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) , a f f ' d , 494 S o . 2 d 772 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ; a n d we make " ' a l l t h e r e a s o n a b l e inferences and c r e d i b i l i t y c h o i c e s s u p p o r t i v e o f t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' " K e n n e d y v . S t a t e , 640 S o . 2 d 2 2 , 26 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) , q u o t i n g B r a d l e y , 494 So. 2 d a t 7 6 1 . " [ A ] n y c o n f l i c t s i n t h e t e s t i m o n y o r credibility of witnesses during a suppression hearing i s a matter f o r r e s o l u t i o n by the t r i a l court Absent a gross abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n , a trial court's resolution of [such] conflict[s] s h o u l d n o t be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l . " S h e e l y v. S t a t e , 629 S o . 2 d 2 3 , 29 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . However, " ' [ w ] h e r e t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t was u n d i s p u t e d the ore tenus rule i s i n a p p l i c a b l e , and the [appellate] Court w i l l s i t i n judgment on t h e e v i d e n c e de n o v o , i n d u l g i n g no presumption i n favor of the trial court's a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e law t o those f a c t s . ' " S t a t e v. Hill, 690 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 1 , 1 2 0 3 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , quoting S t i l e s v . B r o w n , 380 S o . 2 d 7 9 2 , 794 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . "'"[W]hen t h e t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y a p p l i e s t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s , no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . " ' " E x p a r t e J a c k s o n , 886 So. 2 d 1 5 5 , 1 5 9 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , q u o t i n g H i l l , 690 S o . 2d a t 1 2 0 3 , q u o t i n g i n t u r n E x p a r t e A g e e , 669 So. 2 d 1 0 2 , 104 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . A t r i a l c o u r t ' s u l t i m a t e l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n on a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s b a s e d on a given s e t of facts i s a question of law that i s r e v i e w e d de n o v o on a p p e a l . See S t a t e v . S m i t h , 785 So. 2 d 1 1 6 9 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) . ' " C.B.D. v . S t a t e , , So. [Ms. C R - 1 0 - 0 6 4 0 , Dec. 16, 2011] So. 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2011) ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v. H a r g e t t , 2 d 1200, 1203-04 This Court checkpoints, ( A l a . Crim. App. has long and held that roadblocks 22 2000)). license are 935 checks, not sobriety intrinsically CR-11-0085 unconstitutional. (Ala. Crim. Mclnnish App. 1991). constitutionally Hagood v. Town o f Town App. 1 993). Crim. App. 1989), checkpoints according strong Court are for a 628 So. 2d held that stops forth in v. Texas, whether This a seizure Court i s unreasonable. balancing test are performed are supported by intrusive to the purpose the invasion of privacy the balancing 47 (1979), Cains, to test set determine 555 S o . 2 d a t 2 9 4 . involves "a weighing of [ 1 ] the gravity of the p u b l i c concerns s e r v e d by t h e s e i z u r e , [ 2 ] t h e degree t o which t h e s e i z u r e advances t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , and [ 3 ] the s e v e r i t y of the interference with i n d i v i d u a l liberty." 23 at S e e H a g o o d , 628 S o . 2 d a t adopted 443 U.S. of vehicles the p a r t i c u l a r Essentially, from the c h e c k p o i n t s t o p . this reasonable. 555 S o . 2 d 2 90 ( A l a . and a r e m i n i m a l l y In Cains, be t o be 1057, 1059 ( A l a . plan, 1062. 9 3 5 , 936 v. S t a t e , or i n t e r e s t must s u f f i c i e n t l y o u t w e i g h Brown must i f they interest, 2d checkpoint reasonable i n d i v i d u a l being stopped. resulting So. and o b j e c t i v e to a neutral public 584 the stop Creek, In Cains this State, I n order permissible, Crim. fixed v. CR-11-0085 Cains, 555 S o . 2 d a t 294 50-51 (1979)). the The application arrest "sobriety Sitz, United of t h i s situation States balancing Supreme test to roadblock-type checkpoints." 496 U.S. ( q u o t i n g B r o w n v . T e x a s , 443 U.S. 444, 448-49 States checkpoints public Supreme satisfy concerns Court by has held the seizure" of i n d i v i d u a l s . As f a c t o r - - " t h e degree advances second and s p e c i f i c a l l y to Police v. balancing test, the that prong--that Amendment i n t e r e s t f o r the traditional State (1990). the f i r s t served extended of Dep't When e v a l u a t i n g t h e B r o w n t h r e e - p r o n g United has beyond the stops Michigan Court 47, driver's license "the g r a v i t y of the outweigh See B r o w n , the Fourth 443 U.S. a t 51. to which the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " - - t h e Alabama the Supreme seizure Court held: "[T]here i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e p u b l i c h a s an i n t e r e s t i n making sure t h a t d r i v e r s of v e h i c l e s are p r o p e r l y l i c e n s e d and t h a t t h e v e h i c l e s t h e y a r e driving a r e r e g i s t e r e d and e q u i p p e d w i t h safety d e v i c e s . The C o u r t of C r i m i n a l Appeals s t a t e d i n Hagood: "'"The [ S ] t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t i n e n f o r c i n g i t s registration and l i c e n s i n g laws and t h e difficulty i n e n f o r c i n g t h e l a w s by any other method' ... [has] been held s u f f i c i e n t to outweigh a minor intrusion upon persons stopped at roadblocks conducted f o r [that] purpose[]."'" 24 has CR-11-0085 Ex parte Hagood, prong Jackson, 88 6 S o . 2 d 1 5 5 , 162 628 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 6 0 ) . of the analysis constitutionality "the Thus, b o t h are of a checkpoint the t h i r d officers conducted manner. Essentially, turns (quoting and second therefore, on t h e t h i r d individual the factor-¬ liberty." f a c t o r we m u s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e the checkpoint we the f i r s t satisfied; s e v e r i t y of the interference with To a n a l y z e ( A l a . 2004 ) must i n a n e u t r a l and o b j e c t i v e determine i f the stop was " m i n i m a l l y i n t r u s i v e t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l m o t o r i s t . " To make t h i s determination this Court applies a 13-factor analysis: " ' ( 1 ) The d e g r e e o f d i s c r e t i o n , i f a n y , l e f t t o t h e o f f i c e r i n the f i e l d ; (2) t h e l o c a t i o n designated for the roadblock; (3) t h e t i m e a n d d u r a t i o n o f t h e roadblock; (4) s t a n d a r d s s e t b y s u p e r i o r o f f i c e r s ; (5) a d v a n c e n o t i c e t o t h e p u b l i c a t l a r g e ; (6) advance warning to the individual approaching m o t o r i s t ; (7) m a i n t e n a n c e o f s a f e t y c o n d i t i o n s ; (8) d e g r e e o f f e a r o r a n x i e t y g e n e r a t e d b y t h e mode o f o p e r a t i o n ; (9) a v e r a g e l e n g t h o f t i m e e a c h m o t o r i s t is detained; (10) p h y s i c a l f a c t o r s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e l o c a t i o n , type and method o f o p e r a t i o n ; (11) t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f l e s s i n t r u s i v e methods f o r c o m b a t i n g t h e p r o b l e m ; (12) t h e d e g r e e o f e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e p r o c e d u r e ; a n d (13) a n y o t h e r r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h m i g h t b e a r upon t h e t e s t . ' " Cains, 529, 555 S o . 2 d a t 2 9 6 (quoting 5 4 1 , 673 P . 2 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 8 5 however, a r e "not p i v o t a l State (1983)). to determining 25 v. Deskins, 234 K a n . These factors, 13 whether a p a r t i c u l a r CR-11-0085 roadblock-type stop are considerations "helpful determining to an i s 'minimally intrusive'" take to whether the o f f i c e r s 'objective standard.'" but, instead, account into conducted Ex p a r t e the stop Jackson, when pursuant 886 S o . 2 d a t 163. Here, the procedures was supervisor with over State's as evidence follows: the Alabama drunk ... c e r t a i n areas and possibly Troopers, checkpoint Thornton, testified [the Alabama S t a t e deter i n an e f f o r t motor of c e r t a i n counties." t h a t one o f t h o s e the Jesse several sobriety checkpoints driving testified Corporal State t h e " 4 t h o f J u l y weekend conducted] regarding vehicle (R. 7.) checkpoints that Troopers to deter crashes Corporal was a in Thornton c o n d u c t e d on J u l y 2, 2 0 1 1 , " o u t s i d e o f T a l l a s s e e o n F r i e n d s h i p R o a d a t C h e r o k e e T r a i l " - - t h e l o c a t i o n a t w h i c h O g b u r n was s t o p p e d (R. 7.) Corporal Thornton t e s t i f i e d and a r r e s t e d . t h a t o n J u l y 2, 2 0 1 1 , h i s m a i n d u t y was " f i e l d s u p e r v i s i o n as w e l l as b e i n g troopers." (R. Alabama State checkpoints. decision 7.) Corporal Troopers According t o s e t up Thornton have to the checkpoint 26 testified established Corporal out with the that the policies Thornton, i t was on F r i e n d s h i p Road, for his and he CR-11-0085 chose that pretty l o c a t i o n because heavily explained deter 8.) was traveled that crashes "[t]he in Corporal of area." 8.) objective area that and c a u s e d by because Thornton [was] ... possibly impaired further testified traffic; alert that were a b l e causing that any the oncoming the to p u l l significant troopers motorists troopers were of drivers." that the flashlights; vehicles that [came] the checkpoint to motorists; until that 11:00 p.m. location assigned checkpoint the to of that checkpoint Corporal the the emergency equipment to of checkpoint the troopers were well and were "checked a l l night," from explained as checkpoint; vests conducted Thornton the traffic of location that was checkpoint stream of reflective the (R. flow presence that through the to interruption in wearing with and of used t h e i r equipped 12); out " i t ' s a Corporal s i t u a t e d i n a l o c a t i o n t h a t made i t v i s i b l e without as determined 9:00 that the the (R. p.m. time officers before the started. Trooper E r i c was (R. main Thornton that motorists and "safety" assigned checkpoint[]" to and S a l v a d o r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , on check vehicles t h a t he at a "standardized came i n t o c o n t a c t 27 J u l y 2, with 2011, he sobriety Ogburn. (R. CR-11-0085 17 (emphasis added).) explained as On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , the "standardized Trooper sobriety checkpoint[]" Salvador procedure follows: " [ O g b u r n ' s c o u n s e l ] : Once a c a r p u l l e d up t o t h e r o a d b l o c k , w h a t was t h e p r o c e d u r e t h a t was d o n e ? and "[Trooper Salvador]: Asked f o r d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e proof of insurance. "[Ogburn's c o u n s e l ] : And i f t h e i n d i v i d u a l c o u l d produce a d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e and proof of insurance, w e r e t h e y a l l o w e d t o move f o r w a r d ? "[Trooper Salvador]: I f they had a current v a l i d driver's l i c e n s e and a current insurance card, t h a t ' s c o r r e c t , i f we d i d n ' t s u s p e c t t h a t t h e y w e r e under t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a l c o h o l . " [ O g b u r n ' s c o u n s e l ] : A n d s o t h a t was a l l y o u d i d t o t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c [ ? ] You a s k e d f o r t h e d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e . You a s k e d f o r t h e p r o o f o f i n s u r a n c e . I f t h e y were a b l e t o p r o d u c e a c u r r e n t d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e and c u r r e n t p r o o f o f i n s u r a n c e , t h e y were a l l o w e d t o move o n , r i g h t ? "[Trooper (R. 23-24 Salvador (emphasis about Yes, s i r . Correct." added).) the procedures treated the "general following Salvador]: After questioning of the checkpoint p u b l i c , " Ogburn's c o u n s e l hypothetical question t o Trooper Trooper a n d how then posed the Salvador: " [ O g b u r n ' s c o u n s e l ] : Now, i f you're driving t h r o u g h - - I ' m s o r r y . I f an a u t o m o b i l e i s a p p r o a c h i n g t h e r o a d b l o c k a n d comes u p t o i t a n d y o u n o t i c e t h a t i t ' s one o f o u r l o c a l c i r c u i t j u d g e s , d i d you have 28 he CR-11-0085 t h e a u t h o r i t y a n d d i s c r e t i o n t o wave them on and n o t ask f o r t h a t ? through " "[Trooper S a l v a d o r ] : I ' d check everybody, s i r . "[Ogburn's c o u n s e l ] : But d i d d i s c r e t i o n t o wave them t h r o u g h ? "[Trooper S a l v a d o r ] : Yes, you have s i r . I would the assume so." (R. 24-25.) During Trooper Salvador's testimony, Ogburn r a i s e d the f o l l o w i n g objection regarding the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the checkpoint: " [ T ] h e o n l y w a y t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e c a n come i n i s i f it has been e s t a b l i s h e d that the roadblock was r e a s o n a b l e a n d m e t a l l U.S. S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e s . A n d i t i s o u r p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e S t a t e has n o t done t h a t a n d h a s c o m p l e t e l y f a i l e d t o make t h a t s h o w i n g . I t h i n k t h e C o u r t i s w e l l aware o f t h e cases t h a t s a y t h a t a l l r o a d b l o c k s a r e p r e s u m e d t o be u n l a w f u l u n l e s s a n d u n t i l t h e S t a t e p r o d u c e s e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t they are--meet a l l the requirements. And t h e S t a t e h a s n o t shown t h a t . T h e y h a v e n o t shown i t a t all. They haven't introduced a policy for this p a r t i c u l a r roadblock or a p o l i c y i n general of the A l a b a m a S t a t e T r o o p e r s . So we w o u l d o b j e c t a s t h e p r e d i c a t e hasn't been l a i d f o r the t e s t i m o n y t h a t [Trooper] Salvador i s g i v i n g . " (R. 18-19.) The Ogburn's o b j e c t i o n , district found as court, however, in overruling follows: " I t h i n k t h e y h a v e shown t h a t - - I ' m n o t g o i n g t o debate i t , but they've s h o w n t h e p o l i c y was two h o u r s , t h e r e a s o n t h e y d i d i t , t h a t he a p p r o v e d it. 29 CR-11-0085 He was t h e s u p e r v i s o r , t h a t t h e y do h a v e t h a t p o l i c y a n d i t d i d h a v e a n e f f e c t on t h i s c a s e . I u n d e r s t a n d t h e d o c u m e n t t h a t was g e n e r a t e d was n o t a p o l i c y o r even a w r i t t e n p o l i c y , [ ] but i t was generated b a s i c a l l y s h o w i n g w h a t t h e y d i d t h a t n i g h t . So I do t h i n k t h a t ' s i n f u l f i l l m e n t of S i t z . " 2 3 (R. 19.) At the close renewed h i s objection checkpoint, and objection and the of the regarding district f o u n d as State's the court case-in-chief, constitutionality again overruled Ogburn of the Ogburn's follows: " B a s e d on t h e t h i n g s t h a t y o u d i d m e n t i o n , I'm not going to--I'm not going to debate i t , but I d i d hear testimony that b a s i c a l l y they're stopping each car, e v e r y c a r . He d i d s a y s o m e t h i n g a b o u t d i s c r e t i o n t o w a v e a c i r c u i t j u d g e t h r o u g h . B u t he s a i d he s t o p p e d e v e r y c a r . A n d he s a i d he a s k e d e v e r y b o d y f o r t h e i r I agree w i t h the majority opinion's holding that a w r i t t e n p l a n i s not r e q u i r e d to support the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of a checkpoint. T h e r e i s no b i n d i n g a u t h o r i t y t h a t s t a n d s for the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t w r i t t e n g u i d e l i n e s are a mandatory r e q u i r e m e n t o f a v a l i d c h e c k p o i n t . See S i t z , s u p r a , S t o n e v . S t a t e , 705 S o . 2 d 1316 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 ) , Hagood, s u p r a . 2 The document t o w h i c h the d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e f e r s i s the " v e h i c l e checkpoint" form. A l t h o u g h t h e r e c o r d i s u n c l e a r as t o w h e t h e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a d m i t t e d t h e f o r m as an e x h i b i t , t h e S t a t e m o v e d t o a d m i t t h e f o r m a s " E x h i b i t A" (R. 12) ; O g b u r n o b j e c t e d t o i t s a d m i s s i o n (R. 1 3 - 1 5 ) , a n d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o v e r r u l e d Ogburn's o b j e c t i o n (R. 1 5 ) . The form i s s i g n e d by Corporal T h o r n t o n as t h e supervisor, lists the "approved checkpoint location," indicates the date and d u r a t i o n of the checkpoint, l i s t s the t r o o p e r s assigned to work the checkpoint, and details the number o f vehicles c h e c k e d a n d o f a r r e s t s made a t t h e c h e c k p o i n t . (C. 11.) 3 30 CR-11-0085 d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e a n d i n s u r a n c e a n d w o u l d o n l y do something e x t r a i f they noticed alcohol, had a suspicion. I think that's pretty reasonable and common s e n s e , a n d t h e y s a i d i t was f o r t w o h o u r s . I f i n d t h a t t h e y met t h o s e t h i n g s . " (R. 61.) Thus, the presented, determined limitations on the Evaluating majority opinion district based on the facts t h a t a " p l a n embodying e x p l i c i t , n e u t r a l conduct of the court, individual above-detailed officers" facts, existed. however, concludes: " I n t h e p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n , ... t h e r e i s no o t h e r evidence of a plan that p l a c e d e x p l i c i t n e u t r a l l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e o f f i c e r s . C o r p o r a l Thornton testified that the troopers have e s t a b l i s h e d p o l i c i e s concerning the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of checkpoints, but he d i d not g i v e any testimony concerning the substance of those policies or concerning how those policies placed explicit n e u t r a l l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e o f f i c e r s working t h e c h e c k p o i n t . The State also presented e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e way t h e o f f i c e r s actually c a r r i e d out the checkpoint i n the present case, but t h e S t a t e d i d n o t p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e concerning whether the way the officers carried out the c h e c k p o i n t was i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a p l a n e m b o d y i n g explicit, neutral limitations on the officers' c o n d u c t . T h e r e i s s i m p l y no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s i n t h e f i e l d were g i v e n any p a r t i c u l a r i n s t r u c t i o n s b e f o r e the c h e c k p o i n t began c o n c e r n i n g how they were to conduct the checkpoint or c o n c e r n i n g t h e e x t e n t o f t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n . The o n l y specific evidence concerning the officers' d i s c r e t i o n was t h e t e s t i m o n y o f T r o o p e r S a l v a d o r who t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h he i n f a c t s t o p p e d every vehicle that passed through the checkpoint, he a s s u m e d t h a t he had the discretion to allow a 31 the CR-11-0085 c i r c u i t judge t o pass through t h e checkpoint w i t h o u t being stopped. Furthermore, t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e indicating that the officers' discretion at the c h e c k p o i n t was s u p e r v i s e d b y a n y o f f i c i a l t h a t was not i n the f i e l d . " (Emphasis added.) concludes that conducted i s not evidence court's In testimony conclusion that limitations other words, the majority establishing that a checkpoint can p r o p e r l y support a "plan on t h e o f f i c e r s ' how opinion embodying conduct" a explicit, was trial neutral existed. That c o n c l u s i o n , however, d i s r e g a r d s our w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d ore tenus standard reasonable trial that inferences court.'" testimony we make " ' a l l the ... s u p p o r t i v e o f t h e d e c i s i o n (citations the d i s t r i c t embodying of individual established under which C.B.D., s u p r a , at trial, a "plan conduct of review, explicit, officers" t h a t Trooper court omitted). could of the From t h e have neutral limitations inferred on t h e e x i s t e d because the testimony Salvador d i d n o t choose t h e date o f the c h e c k p o i n t , d i d n o t choose t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e c h e c k p o i n t , did n o t choose t h e time the checkpoint choose t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e c h e c k p o i n t , purpose of the checkpoint, w o u l d be a s s i g n e d t o work h a d no was t o o c c u r , d i dnot establish the control the checkpoint, 32 d i d not over whether he and d i d , i n f a c t , CR-11-0085 stop I every v e h i c l e t h a t passed through the cannot say that the district court checkpoint. grossly d i s c r e t i o n w h e n i t c o n c l u d e d t h a t " t h e r e was beforehand." (R. that focuses solely "stopped every discretion to stopped." The 4 abused a policy in its place 15.) Furthermore, conclusion Thus, the majority nothing on allow limited Trooper vehicle" a majority opinion, and the circuit opinion, that through however, that "he had without fails its discretion, statements assumption judge reaching troopers' Salvador's his in to he the being consider I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n a d d s t h e phrase "without being stopped" to Ogburn's circuit-judge hypothetical. That p h r a s e , however, does not appear i n the exchange between Ogburn's c o u n s e l and T r o o p e r Salvador: 4 "[Ogburn's c o u n s e l ] : Now, i f you're driving t h r o u g h - - I ' m s o r r y . I f an a u t o m o b i l e i s a p p r o a c h i n g t h e r o a d b l o c k a n d c o m e s up t o i t a n d y o u n o t i c e t h a t i t ' s one o f o u r l o c a l c i r c u i t j u d g e s , d i d y o u h a v e t h e a u t h o r i t y a n d d i s c r e t i o n t o w a v e t h e m on t h r o u g h and not ask f o r t h a t ? " "[Trooper Salvador]: I'd check everybody, s i r . "[Ogburn's counsel]: But did d i s c r e t i o n t o wave them t h r o u g h ? "[Trooper Salvador]: Yes, so." 33 you have s i r . I would the assume CR-11-0085 that Trooper Salvador, choosing the as s t a t e d a b o v e , location of the h a d no d i s c r e t i o n i n checkpoint; choosing the time choosing the duration of the checkpoint; assigned to work instead, was vested Salvador was told to a n d no d i s c r e t i o n the checkpoint. i n Corporal was was t o l d what t i m e over the purpose that passed told where the checkpoint through the checkpoint, the troopers with very Jackson, supra officers little h a d no d i s c r e t i o n would (holding that officer was was h a d no that control each v e h i c l e hold discretion. a roadblock was See that the i n finding Ex left parte valid where t h e i n d e c i d i n g whom t o s t o p and where i n v o l v e d i n the planning, the checkpoint occur, established that t i m i n g o f t h e r o a d b l o c k ) ; C f . Hagood, holding (R. I assigned would and s t o p p e d he Trooper t h a t he was would occur, of the checkpoint, i n the discretion, Because the checkpoint a n e u t r a l and o b j e c t i v e p l a n and That c o u r t d i d not g r o s s l y abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n superior in as t o w h e t h e r Thornton. that a no d i s c r e t i o n by a s u p e r i o r o f f i c e r a checkpoint, district discretion t h e c h e c k p o i n t w o u l d o c c u r ; no d i s c r e t i o n i n purpose of the checkpoint; was no was 24-25.) 34 placement, 628 S o . 2 d 1057 ( i n unconstitutional, this Court CR-11-0085 found that the "unfettered" judgment of Based police discretion). the on Kellum, officers the J., district conducted Accordingly, the I checkpoint would affirm with the court. foregoing reasons, concurs. 35 I respectfully dissent.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.