Most of us have driven up to a police
“check points” or “roadblocks” where we have been stopped and questioned by
an officer. There are several different reasons given by law enforcement officials for these
roadblocks. For example, some roadblocks are described as “safety checks” where
the officers are looking to see if the driver and his or her passengers are wearing seatbelts.
Other roadblocks are to check the validity of the individual’s driver’s license, proof
of insurance and/or proof of vehicle registration. Regardless of the stated purpose of the
detention, a police roadblock is often a “net” that allows the police to
“catch” many different types of criminals. DUI drivers, drug traffickers, drivers of stolen vehicles, and fugitives
with outstanding warrants are just some of the individuals that get nabbed.
United States Supreme Court and Georgia Courts have long upheld the validity of roadblocks as an
effective crime fighting tool under certain circumstances. The Courts have said that
roadblocks that have as the primary purpose the detection of general criminal
wrongdoing will not survive the scrutiny under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but
others that have certain specific reasons for establishing roadblocks will pass Constitutional
muster. Some of the Court approved legitimate purposes for roadblocks include:
driver’s license checks, vehicle registration checks, sobriety checks, and the interception of
Because the Courts do not like the police to stop motorists without some
showing that they have committed a crime or at least a traffic violation, case law has set out
certain guidelines the police must follow in order for a roadblock to be deemed
Georgia Courts have looked to the following factors when
determining if a roadblock is permissible:
Was the decision to implement the roadblock made by supervisory personnel and did not have a
legitimate primary purpose? Courts do not want individual officers to be able to set up their
own roadblocks without receiving some sort of guidance and approval from their superior
2. Did the officers, in the course and execution of the roadblock,
utilize random vehicle detention instead of stopping all vehicles traveling on the
roadway? The law does not want officers picking cars at random to stop. This can lead to
impermissible profiling. There are some exceptions to this rule but generally the officers at
a roadblock should stop each car. Courts have consistently said that they don’t want
“unfettered discretion granted to field officers.”
3. Did the roadblock cause a delay to motorists that
was lengthy and unreasonable? Case law has established that the time period of the detention
must be brief. The police may ask brief questions to obtain information relating to the reason
for the roadblock but they can’t interrogate motorists about unrelated matters unless some
additional evidence creates an articulable suspicion of some possible criminal activity. For
example, if the police officer approaches the vehicle to ask the driver about his or her license and
smells the odor of marijuana or alcohol coming from the car, this will, more than likely, authorize
the officer to extend the scope and length of the detention to investigate a possible drug violation
or DUI driver.
4. Was the roadblock operation sufficiently identified as a police
checkpoint? This means that the roadblock should be clearly marked as a roadblock with
uniformed police officers in marked police vehicles.
5. The screening officer's
training and experience were insufficient to qualify him to make an initial determination as to
which motorists should be investigated further. For example, if a roadblock is set up as a
“sobriety checkpoint”, the officers manning the checkpoint must be properly trained in
Any person charged with a crime based on an encounter with the police at a
roadblock should seek legal representation to take a closer look at the case. As you can see
from the “factors” listed above, Georgia courts will closely scrutinize the procedures
used by law enforcement agencies prior to allowing the evidence obtained during the encounter to be
used against the defendant at trial.
 See Thomas v. State, 277 Ga. App. 88 (2005) where the Court held
that the roadblock was illegal as the officer in the field conducting the roadblock lacked
appropriate authority to implement the roadblock.
Disclaimer: The information provided on Lawyers.com is not legal advice, Lawyers.com is not a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or should be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on Lawyers.com are paid attorney advertisements and do not in any way constitute a referral or endorsement by Lawyers.com or any approved or authorized lawyer referral service. Your access of/to and use of this site is subject to additional Terms and Conditions.
Martindale-Hubbell and martindale.com are registered trademarks; AV, BV, AV Preeminent and BV Distinguished are registered certification marks; Lawyers.com and the Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rated Icon are service marks; and Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings are trademarks of Internet Brands, Inc., used under license. Other products and services may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.