{"id":5769,"date":"2011-12-28T19:12:48","date_gmt":"2011-07-11T06:12:32","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-07-11T06:12:32","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5769","title":{"rendered":"KS: DUI roadblock was valid; 1.6% effective rate sufficient"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The DUI roadblock in this case satisfied the state supreme court\u2019s standards, and the fact only 1.6% of the persons stopped resulted in arrest is a reasonable effective rate like in <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=11348246873623439918&amp;q=sitz&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Sitz<\/a>. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.kscourts.org\/Cases-and-Opinions\/opinions\/CtApp\/2011\/20110708\/103762.pdf\">City of Overland Park v. Rhodes<\/a>, 46 Kan. App. 2d 57, 257 P.3d 864 (2011)*:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u201cNumerous conditions and factors must be considered in determining whether a DUI roadblock meets the balancing test in favor of the [State]. Among the factors which should be considered are: (1) The degree of discretion, if any, left to the officer in the field; (2) the location designated for the roadblock; (3) the time and duration of the roadblock; (4) standards set by superior officers; (5) advance notice to the public at large; (6) advance warning to the individual approaching motorist; (7) maintenance of safety conditions; (8) degree of fear or anxiety generated by the mode of operation; (9) average length of time each motorist is detained; (10) physical factors surrounding the location, type and method of operation; (11) the availability of less intrusive methods for combating the problem; (12) the degree of effectiveness of the procedure; and (13) any other relevant circumstances which might bear upon the test. Not all of the factors need to be favorable to the State but all which are applicable to a given roadblock should be considered.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Defendant\u2019s wheel touching the yellow line three times was justification for a stop. Defendant was arrested and convicted for DUI. State v. Brewer, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 511 (July 7, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5769\">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-5769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5769","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=5769"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5769\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}