The "Roadblock" sub-section of this guide examines the use of sobriety checkpoints in Georgia, outlining the procedures that govern their implementation. This segment explains how roadblocks must adhere to specific guidelines to ensure that they are conducted lawfully and do not infringe on individual rights. It discusses the criteria that law enforcement must meet, including neutrality in location selection and the manner of vehicle stops, to validate the legality of these checkpoints.
Policy for Roadblock - Policy Number 17.16.2
The Georgia Department of Public Safety shall conduct roadblocks to protect the citizens of the State of Georgia and to monitor and check driver’s licenses, driver condition, vehicle registrations, vehicle equipment and other requirements of the Georgia motor vehicle and traffic code and to locate a suspected criminal likely to be in the area. Roadblocks shall be conducted in a manner that safely maximizes available personnel, promotes highway safety and provides the greatest public benefit. Roadblocks shall not be established for the general purpose of crime control or deterrence.
In Georgia, roadblocks must meet certain requirements to be upheld as constitutional. Firstly, the decision to implement the roadblock must be made by supervisory personnel rather than officers in the field. Brown v. State, 293 Ga. 787. This requirement is intended to control the potential for arbitrary stops that would exist if every officer in the field could implement a checkpoint. Williams v. State, 293 Ga. 883.
Secondly, all vehicles must be stopped as opposed to random vehicle stops. Kellogg v. State, 288 Ga. App. 265. This requirement ensures that officers cannot implement checkpoints on the fly while out on patrol, stopping vehicles arbitrarily or targeting individual drivers for discriminatory or other improper reasons. Brown v. State. .
Thirdly, the delay to motorists must be minimal. Harwood v. State, 262 Ga. App. 818. This requirement is designed to ensure that law-abiding motorists are only briefly delayed. Brown v. State, 293 Ga. 787.
Fourthly, the roadblock operation must be well identified as a police checkpoint. Harwood v. State. This requirement is intended to lessen the amount of fright or concern to drivers and permit those drivers to see visible signs of the officers' authority. It is important to note that the absence of any one item, such as cones or signs, does not render a police roadblock unlawful State v. Conner, 322 Ga. App. 636.
Lastly, the screening officer's training and experience must be sufficient to qualify him to make an initial determination as to which motorists should be given field tests for intoxication. Kellogg v. State. This requirement ensures that competent screeners are used. Brown v. State.
These requirements are designed to strike a balance between citizens' right to travel free from governmental interference, and their countervailing right to effective law enforcement. Brent v. State, 270 Ga. 160. It is also important to note that the primary purpose of the roadblock program must be other than the general interest in crime control. The primary purpose inquiry must focus at the programmatic level, with the goal of ensuring that the agency has not authorized vehicle checkpoints primarily for general crime control but rather for an appropriately limited purpose like traffic safety.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Treatises:
Georgia Constitution: