ILNews

Court rules checkpoint unconstitutional

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana police officers are not allowed to target specific people when setting up roadblocks and checkpoints, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals. The court overturned a trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress evidence from two police roadblocks created after breaking up a party.

In Kenneth Scott King v. State of Indiana, No. 58A01-0704-CR-159, King was at a party to which the police were called. After breaking up the party, police set up two checkpoints to search for impaired drivers - one on private property where the party was and one at the end of the driveway on the public street. All vehicles were required to drive through these two points in order to leave the premises.

An officer believed King, who was slowly driving his car, was trying to avoid the checkpoints and stopped him. After administering a portable breath test, King was charged with misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher.

King filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained during the checkpoint stop, which the trial court denied.

The Court of Appeals ruled the checkpoints were unconstitutional under Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The appellate court applied the standard derived from State v. Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d 960 (Ind. 2002) to determine whether the roadblocks were constitutionally allowed.

The court found the state failed to provide evidence in support of five out of six of the factors that weigh on the reasonableness of a checkpoint. The state failed to meet its burden to prove the checkpoints were constitutional.

Even by applying federal standards for checkpoints as found in Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356, 361 (Ind. 2005), the state still fails to prove the checkpoints were constitutional.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.

ADVERTISEMENT