NC: DL, LPN, and insurance checkpoint was reasonable

The Saint Pauls NC police department set up a two hour checkpoint to stop all cars to check for “violations of license, registration, and insurance requirements.” Defendant was stopped and asked for his DL but he didn’t have one. The smell of burnt marijuana was obvious. When it was done, he was arrested for felon in possession of a firearm. The checkpoint was held to have a proper programmatic purpose even for license checks, and it was reasonable. State v. White, 2026 N.C. App. LEXIS 17 (Jan. 7, 2026):

To determine a checkpoint’s reasonableness, the reviewing “court must weigh the public’s interest in the checkpoint against the individual’s Fourth Amendment privacy interest.” Veazey I, 191 N.C. App. at 186. In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 50 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the “reasonableness” of a checkpoint “depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary inference by law officers.” Id. We balance these interests by weighing (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 50-51. Where the “balance” of these factors “weigh[s] in favor of the public interest, the checkpoint is reasonable and therefore constitutional.” Veazey I, 191 N.C. App. at 186. Defendant concedes that the checkpoint “advances the public interest” under Brown’s first prong, Brown, 443 U.S. at 50, but challenges “the trial court’s weighing of the second and third” prongs as “rel[ying] extensively on incorrect findings of fact.”

{Ever since 1979’s Prouse, the entire concept of a DL, LPN, and insurance checkpoint struck me as unreasonable per se because of a lack of public interest, but DWI roadblocks, not so.}