An Alabama dissent in a DUI roadblock case

In Woolen v. State, 2014 Ala. LEXIS 70 (May 9, 2014), Chief Justice Roy Moore dissented from denial of certiorari on a roadblock case (opinion below) that basic standards weren’t complied with:

The State’s testimony in the trial court established only that the officers conducting the roadblock had an oral briefing “on what we’re going to go do and these are the hours we’re going to do it … during this time span.” The Court of Criminal Appeals held that this sparse testimony, which it conceded was “weak,” satisfied the Ogburn requirement to “specifically articulate the full details of the previously established plan.” Although this conclusion seems puzzling, the Court of Criminal Appeals, viewing the State’s testimony in light of “the totality of the circumstances” inferred the existence of the unarticulated plan from the officers’ actions at the roadblock, e.g., a well-lit stopping area, blinking emergency lights on the police vehicles, and a minimally intrusive detention to examine driver’s licenses and proof of insurance.

Because the State presented no evidence on the details of the plan or how it controlled the officers’ discretion, it failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that “the checkpoint was in accordance with a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the officers’ conduct.” Ogburn, 104 So. 3d at 275 (emphasis added). As Woolen argues in his petition, the State “offered absolutely no testimony about what [the officers] were actually instructed to do, or whether what they actually did was in accordance with a pre-established plan.” By inferring the existence of a plan from the officers’ actions, the Court of Criminal Appeals in effect relieved the State of its burden as articulated in Ogburn.

[FYI: Moore is the former Chief Justice removed for refusing to abide by a court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building. He was elected again in 2013.]