E.D.N.C.: Checkpoint resulting in federal DUI was reasonable

The police highway checkpoint that resulted in defendant’s federal DUI was reasonably established. United States v. Morton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172242 (E.D. N.C. December 6, 2013):

Tatro testified that he planned the checkpoint several weeks in advance and that he coordinated it with input from his supervisors from the Operations Cell. The existence of an Operations Order suggests that Tatro’s authority was not as limitless as Plaintiff implies. Tatro testified that the decisions regarding setting up the checkpoint were made by him and the Operations Cell. (DE 33 at 8:8-9:8). In conjuction with the Operations Cell, the Operations Order was drafted and there was no discretion in which vehicles would be stopped, nor does the Defendant suggest there was deviation from the Operations Order. Thus, despite the fact that Plaintiff characterizes Tatro’s authority to determine the date, time, location and logistics of the checkpoint, as well as to decide whether to purge the checkpoint, as “unbridled,” his authority in conducting the checkpoint was neither exclusive nor unreasonable. Unlike the discretionary spot-check of a vehicle in Prouse, “checkpoint operations both appear to and actually do involve less discretionary enforcement activity.” U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579, 603, 103 S.Ct. 2573 (1983) (quoting United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 558-559, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 3083, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976). Accordingly, Tatro’s authority in executing the checkpoint activities is neither unreasonable nor unconstitutional.