Armentrout v. State

The State failed to prove that the police department's overall checkpoint program had a legitimate primary purpose; the checkpoint was therefore unlawful and the trial court erred in denying the DUI defendant's motion to suppress.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Renee Armentrout was stopped at a police checkpoint and arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Following a stipulated bench trial, she was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent it was less safe for her to do so DUI less safe and driving under the influence of alcohol with an excessive blood-alcohol concentration DUI per se. On appeal, Armentrout contends that the trial court erred in denying her motions to suppress evidence recovered from the traffic stop and the results of the State-administered chemical test, arguing that the checkpoint was unlawful and the police officer’s reading of the implied-consent warning was misleading. For the reasons set forth infra, we agree that the checkpoint was unlawful and, thus, reverse Armentrout’s convictions.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s findings and judgment,1 the evidence shows that on June 29, 2011, Sergeant Ronnie Young—an officer in the Johns Creek Police Department who supervised day-to-day traffic-enforcement operations—submitted a written proposal to his superior officer to establish a traffic task force, which would conduct several traffic-safety checkpoints during the upcoming Fourth of July weekend. In addition to specifying the times and locations for the checkpoints, the proposal noted that the goal of the task force was to “establish safety checkpoints to enhance safe travel” through the city and that the “primary purpose of the checkpoints was to conduct a check of driver’s licenses, and to identify drivers who are under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.” Young’s superior approved the proposal, and Johns Creek police officers including Sergeant Young began implementing the checkpoints two days later.

Armentrout v. State

The State failed to prove that the police department's overall checkpoint program had a legitimate primary purpose; the checkpoint was therefore unlawful and the trial court erred in denying the DUI defendant's motion to suppress.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report