{ "id": 11708774, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BARRY MICHAEL GROOMS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Grooms", "decision_date": "1997-04-15", "docket_number": "No. COA96-609", "first_page": "88", "last_page": "91", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "126 N.C. App. 88" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "37 ALR4th 10", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "52 L.Ed. 2d 660", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "440 U.S. 648", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6187389 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/440/0648-01" ] }, { "cite": "462 S.E.2d 524", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 656", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 793056, 793186, 793211, 793107, 793243 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0656-02", "/nc/341/0656-05", "/nc/341/0656-03", "/nc/341/0656-01", "/nc/341/0656-04" ] }, { "cite": "459 S.E.2d 55", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "57" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 N.C. App. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11916476 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "565" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/119/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "477 S.E.2d 172", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "176" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 N.C. 702", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 867658 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "709" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/344/0702-01" ] }, { "cite": "435 S.E.2d 842", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "844" }, { "page": "844" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 N.C. App. 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522147 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "480" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/112/0477-01" ] }, { "cite": "440 U.S. 648", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6187389 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "633" }, { "page": "673" }, { "page": "663" }, { "page": "673-74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/440/0648-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 378, "char_count": 5729, "ocr_confidence": 0.752, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1090204382931733e-07, "percentile": 0.5702419330238945 }, "sha256": "0220262ee1987f3e7472b27188db6c3f4fd8adc0e2eac9424b20f5b2e6865fa6", "simhash": "1:f9c11570bbec8c5f", "word_count": 925 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:11:14.463583+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WYNN and MARTIN, Mark D., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BARRY MICHAEL GROOMS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nThe sole issue in this appeal is the constitutionality of the roadblock established by Anson County deputies. Defendant was stopped at the roadblock and charged with driving while subject to an impairing substance. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained against him on the ground that the roadblock was unconstitutional. The trial court denied his motion. Defendant preserved his right of appeal before pleading guilty to the charge. He now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress.\nAt the suppression hearing, the State presented evidence that on 7 June 1995 at approximately 5:30 p.m., six Anson County deputy sheriffs, under authority from the sheriff, established a roadblock to check for drivers\u2019 licenses, stolen vehicles and individuals for whom they had outstanding arrest warrants. At approximately 6:35 p.m., defendant approached the roadblock in his Chevrolet truck. Sgt. D. M. Morton asked defendant for his driver\u2019s license, noticed a strong odor of alcohol and asked defendant to get out of his vehicle. Sgt. Morton then observed eight to twelve empty beer cans in the bed of defendant\u2019s truck. After defendant performed various sobriety tests, Sgt. Morton concluded that he had \u201cconsumed a sufficient amount of impairing substance to appreciably impair his mental and physical faculties.\u201d\nDefendant presented no evidence.\nOn appeal, defendant cites Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 59 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1979), to support his contention that the roadblock was unconstitutional. In Prouse, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a random stop of a vehicle to check for license and registration violates the Fourth Amendment. Prouse, 440 U.S. at 633, 59 L. Ed. 2d at 673. However, the Court stated: \u201cThis holding does not preclude the State of Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative.\u201d Id. at 663, 59 L. Ed. 2d at 673-74.\nIt is clear that Prouse only prohibits random checks of automobiles at the officer\u2019s unbridled discretion. It does not prohibit this type of roadblock where all cars are stopped in order to check for licenses, stolen vehicles and individuals who have arrest warrants outstanding.\nOur interpretation of Prouse finds support in State v. Sanders, 112 N.C. App. 477, 435 S.E.2d 842 (1993), where this Court upheld the constitutionality of a roadblock stopping every car passing through to check for drivers\u2019 licenses. Sanders, 112 N.C. App. at 480, 435 S.E.2d at 844. The Sanders Court found the roadblock, which was much like the one at issue here, in \u201ccompliance with the principles enunciated in Prouse.\" Id. at 479, 435 S.E.2d at 844.\nOn appeal from a ruling on a motion to suppress, a trial court\u2019s findings of fact are conclusive if supported by competent evidence. State v. Braxton, 344 N.C. 702, 709, 477 S.E.2d 172, 176 (1996). If the findings of fact support the conclusions of law, the conclusions are binding on appeal. State v. West, 119 N.C. App. 562, 565, 459 S.E.2d 55, 57, appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 341 N.C. 656, 462 S.E.2d 524 (1995).\nIn the present case, the trial judge found that the roadblock was approved by the sheriff and was not a totally discretionary action. He further found that \u201cevery vehicle that crossed through the point of the roadblock at 1730 and road 1703 was stopped for the purpose of locating people who had outstanding arrest warrants, making a license check of the operators of the vehicles passing by, and checking for stolen vehicles.\u201d\nWe hold that these facts are supported by competent record evidence. We further hold that these findings of fact support the conclusion that the roadblock at issue was not unconstitutional. It was not a random stop and did not involve an \u201cunconstrained exercise of discretion.\u201d As long as every driver is subject to the same check, law enforcement has a legitimate tool to get drunks off the roads, recover stolen vehicles and find persons not served with outstanding warrants or summons. We therefore discern no violation of defendant\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights under Prouse and affirm the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to suppress.\nAffirmed.\nJudges WYNN and MARTIN, Mark D., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "LEWIS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Cheryl A. Perry, for the State.", "Thomas, Harrington & Biedler, by Larry E. Harrington, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BARRY MICHAEL GROOMS\nNo. COA96-609\n(Filed 15 April 1997)\nSearches and Seizures \u00a7 77 (NCI4th)\u2014 roadblock \u2014 approved by sheriff \u2014 every vehicle stopped \u2014 no violation of Fourth Amendment rights\nIn a prosecution for driving while subject to an impairing substance, the trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of defendant being stopped at a police roadblock where the evidence indicated that the roadblock was approved by the sheriff and was not a totally discretionary action, and every vehicle that approached the roadblock was stopped for the purpose of locating people with outstanding warrants, making a license check, and checking for stolen vehicles. Therefore, defendant\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights under Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 52 L.Ed. 2d 660 (1979), were not violated.\nAm Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures \u00a7 75.\nValidity of routine roadblocks by state or local police for purpose of discovery of vehicular or driving violations. 37 ALR4th 10.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 28 March 1996 by Judge Donald R. Huffman in Anson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 February 1997.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Cheryl A. Perry, for the State.\nThomas, Harrington & Biedler, by Larry E. Harrington, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0088-01", "first_page_order": 126, "last_page_order": 129 }