NC: DWI roadblock satisfied reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment

Based on the trial court’s findings, the DWI checkpoint in this case was reasonable. State v. Nolan, 211 N.C. App. 109, 712 S.E.2d 279 (2011):

“To determine whether a seizure at a checkpoint is reasonable requires a balancing of the public’s interest and an individual’s privacy interest.” Rose, 170 N.C. App. at 293, 612 S.E.2d at 342. “In order to make this determination, this Court has required application of the three-prong test set out by the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 50, 61 L. Ed. 2d 357, 361, 99 S. Ct. 2637, 2640 (1979).” Jarrett, __ N.C. App. at __, 692 S.E.2d at 424-25 (citing Rose, 170 N.C. App. at 293, 612 S.E.2d at 342). “Under Brown, the trial court must consider ‘[1] the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure[;] [2] the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest[;] and [3] the severity of the interference with individual liberty.’” Id. at __, 692 S.E.2d at 425 (quoting Rose, 170 N.C. App. at 293-94, 612 S.E.2d at 342 (internal quotations and citation omitted)).

The affidavit was not stale despite its lack of specific time because the reasonable inference was that it was really recent. “[T]he affidavit adequately suggested a continuing criminal operation.” Jones v. State, 338 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App.—Houston (1st Dist.) 2011)*:

Mindful that a grudging, negative attitude towards warrants would be inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment’s preference for searches conducted pursuant to warrants, see Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, 103 S. Ct. at 2331, we hold that the temporal references within the affidavit allowed the magistrate to determine there was a substantial basis for concluding that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing. We reach this conclusion because the affidavit adequately suggested a continuing criminal operation, including “recently” obtained information from the first confidential informant, from the affiant’s own investigation, and from the second confidential informant who made the controlled buy. All of this information supported the affiant’s belief that a violation was “currently” taking place on a specified date when the affidavit was sworn, and at a time which was no more than 24 minutes before the specified time when the search warrant was signed.