{"id":2852,"date":"2009-01-15T10:24:01","date_gmt":"2009-01-08T07:26:18","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-01-08T07:26:18","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2852","title":{"rendered":"W.D.N.C.: DL roadblock valid"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>DL roadblock was valid. Defendant&#8217;s license having been revoked, he was subject to arrest. United States v. Nixon, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105889 (W.D. N.C. December 18, 2008):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Although Nixon does not challenge the validity of the initial stop, this Court notes as a preliminary matter that the driver&#8217;s license checkpoint was permissible. Vehicle checkpoints are permissible where all drivers on a certain road are stopped as they pass, or where all cars at specific intervals (e.g., every fifth car) are stopped, so long as the intrusion on the drivers&#8217; privacy and time is minimal, the procedure is uniform, and the stop satisfies a purpose other than normal law enforcement. See <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=99-1030\">City of Indianapolis v. Edmond<\/a>, 531 U.S. 32, 37-38 (2000); <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=496&amp;invol=444\">Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz<\/a>, 496 U.S. 444, 450-55 (1990). Here, all drivers were stopped and asked to produce their licenses before they could proceed on their way. The intrusion was minimal and uniformly imposed. The purpose of the stop was roadway safety, a purpose approved by the Supreme Court as distinct from normal law enforcement. Edmond, 531 U.S. at 37-38. Of especial relevance to the present case, the Supreme Court in Edmond suggested in dicta that a &#8220;roadblock with the purpose of verifying drivers&#8217; licenses and vehicle registrations would be permissible.&#8221; Id. at 37-38. Thus, the initial seizure of Nixon at the checkpoint for the purpose of checking his driver&#8217;s license was reasonable and comports with Supreme Court precedent on the issue.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2852\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2852","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2852","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2852"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2852\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2852"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2852"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2852"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}