Wildlife poaching checkpoint leaving a national park was valid

Wildlife poaching checkpoint led to defendant’s arrest for DUI. The checkpoint was legitimately set up and reasonably conducted. United States v. Fraire, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84382 (E.D. Cal. October 8, 2008):

The Government argues that the checkpoint’s “special law enforcement concern” (poaching) entitled Ranger Felix to stop Mr. Fraire “without individualized suspicion.” The Government points to Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 423, 124 S.Ct. 885 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment forbids stops without individualized suspicion for general “crime control” purposes “in the absence of special circumstances.” The fact that a vehicle stops “normally lack individualized suspicion cannot by itself determine the constitutional outcome” in that the “Fourth Amendment does not treat a motorist’s car as his castle” and “special law enforcement concerns will sometimes justify highway stops without individualized suspicion.” Lidster, 540 U.S. at 424, 124 S.Ct. 885. The “practice of stopping automobiles briefly for questioning has a long history evidencing its utility and is accepted by motorists as incident to highway use.” Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 561, n. 14, 96 S.Ct. 3074. A person’s “expectation of privacy in an automobile and of freedom in its operation are significantly different from the traditional expectations of privacy.” Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 561, 96 S.Ct. 3074 (border patrol stops for illegal aliens “may be made in the absence of any individualized suspicion at reasonably located checkpoints”).

Mr. Fraire appears to contend that the Park checkpoint is per se illegal as a general crime control device. However, the record reflects the Park Service’s special law enforcement concerns to protect Park wildlife and visitors, to mitigate poaching and to educate on prohibition of Park hunting. Although Mr. Fraire questions the Park Service’s motives, nothing suggests that they are less than legitimate. As such, the focus turns to the checkpoint’s reasonableness.

Heck bars a civil case against plaintiff’s arrest because the conviction had not been set aside. Reed v. Cleveland, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83993 (E.D. Ky. October 20, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.