OK: Roadblock looking for abducted child was valid, two days after the abduction

A roadblock looking for an abducted child was valid when the person the police were looking for was stopped. This was not a general crime control roadblock like Edmond–it was specific and targeted to a serious crime, a child abduction, albeit one that happened two days earlier. Underwood v. State, 2011 OK CR 12, 252 P.3d 221 (2011):

P16 The situation here is similar to the one in Lidster — the obvious difference being that the person challenging the roadblock here was actually implicated in the crime that prompted the roadblock in the first place. That difference, however, is of no constitutional significance, since the legality of a search or seizure is not dependent on the kind of evidence it produces. At the suppression hearing, Agent Mabry sponsored the guidelines used in this case, known as the FBI’s “Child Abduction Response Plan.” Mabry testified about the procedures he had been trained to use when deploying roadblocks to canvass for witnesses and generate leads in such cases. The district court found nothing unreasonable about the roadblock and, applying the factor analysis from Brown and Lidster, we reach the same conclusion. First, the public concerns justifying the roadblock were grave – considerably more so than in Lidster. All police knew was that a little girl had been reported missing two days before. Time was of the essence; the girl’s life might be at stake. Second, the roadblock clearly advanced the public interest of informing people in the area about the girl’s disappearance, and asking them about anything suspicious they may have seen. The police set up four roadblocks surrounding the immediate vicinity of the apartment where Jamie lived. They were deployed around the same time of day that Jamie had disappeared, on the belief that many local motorists tend to travel the same routes around the same time each day. Finally, the interference with individual liberty occasioned by the roadblocks was minimal. The plan contemplated no vehicle searches, and the record offers no evidence that any motorist was seriously inconvenienced.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.