AR: General motion to suppress and hearing didn’t preserve issue raised on appeal

A general motion to suppress did not preserve the specific question of legality of a DUI roadblock that stopped the defendant. The pretext argument for the roadblock was not litigated in the trial court. Snow v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 494 (September 18, 2013):

On appeal, appellant argues that the evidence obtained as a result of the stop should have been suppressed because the roadblock was “set up as a mere subterfuge” and was therefore unconstitutional. However, this question was neither raised before nor ruled upon by the trial court. Appellant’s motion to suppress did not mention the roadblock at all but instead merely asserted generally that the search was unreasonable and that the fruits thereof should be suppressed pursuant to Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). The only mention of any possible infirmity relating to the roadblock was at the very close of the suppression hearing, when appellant asked for a ruling on whether the roadblock was constitutional. The trial court ruled that it was, but there is nothing to show that appellant’s counsel directed the trial court’s attention to the argument that he now makes, i.e., that the roadblock was a mere subterfuge established for the specific purpose of stopping appellant and no other person.