News (Media Awareness Project) - US NC: Appeals Court Reverses Conviction From Rockingham Co. Checkpoint |
Title: | US NC: Appeals Court Reverses Conviction From Rockingham Co. Checkpoint |
Published On: | 2004-02-18 |
Source: | Hendersonville Times-News (NC) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-18 21:01:50 |
APPEALS COURT REVERSES CONVICTION FROM ROCKINGHAM CO. CHECKPOINT
The state Court of Appeals threw out a drug possession conviction Tuesday
against a motorist in ruling that deputies didn't have the right to walk a
drug-sniffing dog around her car at a license checkpoint.
Monica Branch was stopped Nov. 3, 2000, by a community policing unit in
Rockingham County.
Branch presented a duplicate license and a registration to a deputy, who
became suspicious and called in her information to check for outstanding
warrants.
In the meantime, another deputy walked around her car with a dog that
alerted officers to the presence of drugs. Deputies then searched her car
without her permission and found marijuana stems and butts in the ashtray,
according to the court. They found marijuana in her purse and a female
deputy later found cocaine inside Branch's clothing.
Branch pleaded guilty in 2002 to drug possession and received a suspended
term. She appealed, arguing her constitutional rights were violated by an
unlawful checkpoint and illegal detention after she had presented a valid
license to the deputy.
Writing a unanimous opinion for a three-judge appeals panel, Judge Rick
Elmore said the checkpoint was designated to check licenses and
registrations, and that further evidence of illegal activity could prompt
more investigation.
Although the deputy who stopped Branch knew that she might be driving with a
revoked license, it wasn't enough to justify a dog sniff and search of her
car, Elmore said. A reasonable suspicion of drug possession was necessary to
conduct the dog sniff and subsequent searches, he said.
"Allowing the dog sniff of defendant while she was detained on suspicion of
carrying an invalid license would not be consistent with this reasoning," he
wrote in reversing the conviction.
"The time needed to verify defendant's credentials is not a time during
which officers may investigate any possible criminal activity while the
defendant is immobilized," Elmore added.
The state Court of Appeals threw out a drug possession conviction Tuesday
against a motorist in ruling that deputies didn't have the right to walk a
drug-sniffing dog around her car at a license checkpoint.
Monica Branch was stopped Nov. 3, 2000, by a community policing unit in
Rockingham County.
Branch presented a duplicate license and a registration to a deputy, who
became suspicious and called in her information to check for outstanding
warrants.
In the meantime, another deputy walked around her car with a dog that
alerted officers to the presence of drugs. Deputies then searched her car
without her permission and found marijuana stems and butts in the ashtray,
according to the court. They found marijuana in her purse and a female
deputy later found cocaine inside Branch's clothing.
Branch pleaded guilty in 2002 to drug possession and received a suspended
term. She appealed, arguing her constitutional rights were violated by an
unlawful checkpoint and illegal detention after she had presented a valid
license to the deputy.
Writing a unanimous opinion for a three-judge appeals panel, Judge Rick
Elmore said the checkpoint was designated to check licenses and
registrations, and that further evidence of illegal activity could prompt
more investigation.
Although the deputy who stopped Branch knew that she might be driving with a
revoked license, it wasn't enough to justify a dog sniff and search of her
car, Elmore said. A reasonable suspicion of drug possession was necessary to
conduct the dog sniff and subsequent searches, he said.
"Allowing the dog sniff of defendant while she was detained on suspicion of
carrying an invalid license would not be consistent with this reasoning," he
wrote in reversing the conviction.
"The time needed to verify defendant's credentials is not a time during
which officers may investigate any possible criminal activity while the
defendant is immobilized," Elmore added.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...