{"id":3533,"date":"2010-05-16T20:10:52","date_gmt":"2009-11-15T09:19:47","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-11-15T09:19:47","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3533","title":{"rendered":"CA4: DL checkpoint was validly set up and was not for &#8220;general crime control&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Driver\u2019s license and vehicle registration checkpoint in Asheville, NC was properly set up and conducted. Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped, and he interfered with the conversation with the driver and the driver was removed from the car. He furtively put something away, and that led officers to look to see if it was a weapon, which it was. <a href=\"http:\/\/pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov\/opinion.pdf\/084221.U.pdf\">United States v. Henson<\/a>, 351 Fed. Appx. 818 (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In determining the constitutionality of a checkpoint, the court must inquire into both the primary purpose and the reasonableness of the checkpoint. If the primary purpose of the checkpoint was to advance &#8220;the general interest in crime control,&#8221; <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=99-1030\">Edmond<\/a>, 531 U.S. at 48, it is per se invalid under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Faulkner, 450 F.3d 466, 469-70 (9th Cir. 2006); Mills v. Dist. of Columbia, 571 F.3d 1304, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2009). If the primary purpose was valid, the court must then judge the checkpoint&#8217;s reasonableness on the basis of individual circumstances. Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 426 (2004). This requires balancing &#8220;the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty.'&#8221; Id. at 420, 427 (quoting <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?navby=case&amp;court=us&amp;vol=460&amp;page=730\">Brown v. Texas<\/a>, 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979)). Factors to weigh intrusiveness include whether the checkpoint: (1) is clearly visible; (2) is part of some systematic procedure that strictly limits the discretionary authority of police officers; and (3) detains drivers no longer than is reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of checking a license and registration, unless other facts come to light creating a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. McFayden, 865 F.2d at 1311-12 (citing <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=440&amp;invol=648\">Prouse<\/a>, 440 U.S. at 662; <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=469&amp;invol=325\">Martinez-Fuerte<\/a>, 428 U.S. at 558-59; Brown, 443 U.S. at 51).<\/p>\n<p>With this framework in mind, after reviewing the parties&#8217; briefs and the materials submitted in the joint appendix, we find the district court did not err in accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and in concluding that the primary purpose of the checkpoint was not general crime control, but rather to promote traffic safety by allowing police to check drivers&#8217; licenses and vehicle registration. The court&#8217;s reasonableness determination with respect to the checkpoint is also sufficiently supported by the record. Therefore, the district court properly denied Henson&#8217;s motion to suppress on the ground that the checkpoint stop did not violate Henson&#8217;s Fourth Amendment rights.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3533\">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-3533","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3533","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=3533"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3533\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3533"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3533"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3533"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}