US v. Moore:
Moore was driving in “the early morning hours” in Columbus County, North
Carolina when he came upon a checkpoint operated by the local sheriff’s
department. The goal of the checkpoint was to ensure compliance with state
vehicle regulations and required every vehicle to be stopped. Aside from
traffic violations, officers “were permitted to detain motorists . . . only if
the deputy became aware of other facts suggesting criminal activity.” Officers
observed what appeared to be bullet holes on Moore’s car and, when it was
stopped, “immediately noticed the odor of marijuana and saw smoke emitting from
the passenger area.” Moore eventually consented to a search of his car, which
uncovered drugs, guns, and ammunition.
Moore unsuccessfully sought to suppress that evidence and pleaded guilty
to possession of crack with intent to distribute it.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed
Moore’s conviction. The only issue Moore raised was that “the initial stop of
his vehicle . . . was unconstitutional.” The court disagreed, first holding
that the checkpoint had a “valid primary purpose,” that is, traffic enforcement
and was not motivated by a “general interest in crime control.” Second, the
court held that the checkpoint was reasonable
because it furthered that valid purpose and was minimally intrusive. That the
department lacked a written policy for the checkpoint didn’t matter. However,
the court did emphasize “the limits of our holding,” because there “are no
indications in the record of roving vehicular spot checks” in which case “courts
would bring the leash up short.”
No comments:
Post a Comment