IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
KRISTYN SCHREIBER
Appellant,
Appeal No. CRC 06-56 APANO
UCN522006AP000056XXXXCR
v.
STATE OF
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed ________________.
Appeal from a decision of the
County Judge John D. Carballo
J. Kevin Hayslett, Esquire
Attorney for appellant
Blair Clarke, Esquire
Assistant State Attorney
ORDER AND OPINION
(J. Demers)
THIS
MATTER is before the Court on the defendant, Kristyn Schreiber’s, appeal from a
judgment and sentence entered by the
This case arises out of a DUI roadblock/checkpoint set up by the police. The defendant was stopped, showed signs of impairment, and was ultimately arrested for DUI.
The defendant claims the stop of her vehicle was improper because it did not comply with the police’s written guidelines for conducting this particular roadblock. Specifically, the defendant notes the written guidelines provide for the roadblock to begin at 12:30 A.M., but claims the stop must have occurred earlier than that. The defendant argues that the arrest affidavit states she was arrested at 12:35 A.M., and the investigation must have taken quite a few minutes to conduct; therefore, the stop must have occurred before the 12:30 A.M. time the roadblock was to begin. A review of the record, however, does not support that claim. Although the arrest affidavit states the police arrested the defendant at 12:35 A.M., the deputy was quite clear in his testimony on re-direct and re-cross examination that he first made contact with the defendant at 12:35 A.M. Therefore, the stop took place during the appropriate time.
Next, the defendant argues that the police did not comply with the written plan because they did not keep a written log of which vehicles were stopped or when they were stopped. Nothing, however, in either the case law or the written plan requires the police to do this. The testimony of the police clearly established that the actual procedure used to stop the vehicles at the roadblock was in substantial conformance with the written plan.
Finally,
the defendant’s argument that the roadblock was improper because there was no
showing that this roadblock was more effective in combating crime than less
intrusive means is unpersuasive. In
In sum, the balance of the State’s interest in preventing drunken
driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said
to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon
individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor
of the state program. We therefore hold that is consistent with
the Fourth Amendment.
In summary, the police conducted the roadblock in substantial compliance with the written plan. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment and sentence is affirmed.
DONE
AND ORDERED in
___________________________
David A. Demers
Circuit Court Judge
____________________________
Raymond O. Gross
Circuit Court Judge
_____________________________
Robert J. Morris, Jr.
Circuit Court Judge
cc: Office of the State Attorney
Honorable John D. Carballo
J. Kevin Hayslett, Esquire