The constitutionality and validity of traffic checkpoints is an issue that comes across the minds of many. They are viewed by some as an inconvenience and by others as a necessity in order to maintain public safety. In State of North Carolina v. Ostil Flores-Roca (COA25-225), the North Carolina Court of Appeals looks at the constitutionality and compliance with statutory law of a Gaston County traffic checkpoint.
In May of 2023, a Belmont Police Department sergeant authorized a checkpoint at the intersection of Keener Boulevard and Parkdale Drive. The police department had received complaints of speeding in that area and the checkpoint was set up to check for any motor vehicle violations of Chapter 20 of the North Carolina General Statutes. Mr. Flores-Roca was stopped by three officers at the checkpoint and charged with driving while impaired, no operator’s license, and an open container violation. In district court, Mr. Flores-Roca filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized during the stop. The motion was denied, a plea of guilty to driving while driving impaired was entered, and notice of appeal to superior court was given. In superior court, the motion to suppress was again denied with the court finding that there was adequate supervisory approval for the checkpoint and that it was reasonable, constitutional, did not violate federal or state constitutional law. Per a plea agreement, Mr. Flores-Roca plead guilty to driving while impaired and preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The no operator’s license and open container were dismissed per the plea agreement.
The standard of review applied by the appellate Court in evaluating the trial court's denial of Mr. Flores-Roca’s motion to suppress was whether competent evidence supported the court’s findings of fact and if those findings of fact supported the court’s conclusions of law. The trial court’s conclusions of law were reviewed de novo. In order to determine the constitutionality of a checkpoint, the court must first determine the primary programmatic purpose of the checkpoint and if a legitimate purpose is found, then the reasonableness of that purpose must be judged on the basis of the individual circumstances involved. A checkpoint whose primary programmatic purpose is invalid cannot suddenly become valid if it has a subsequent lawful, valid purpose.
Mr. Flores-Roca challenged four of the court’s findings of fact as not being supported by the evidence. Two of those findings pertained to the establishment of the checkpoint as being within the Belmont Police Department’s own policies and guidelines. The Court of Appeals found that although a portion of the Belmont Police Department’s “Authorization for Checkpoint” form was not completed, testimony at the suppression hearing provided by the sergeant who authorized the checkpoint was sufficient to support the trial court's challenged finding of facts. The other two challenged findings of fact pertained to the location and purpose of the checkpoint. The issue was whether the checkpoint was designed to enforce speeding violations or if it was for the enforcement of all Chapter 20 violations. Again, the Court of Appeals considered the record on total, specifically some of the unchallenged findings of fact, and determined that there was sufficient testimony by the authorizing sergeant that the purpose of the checkpoint was for the enforcement of all Chapter 20 violations.
In addition to the findings of fact challenges, Mr. Flores-Roca also challenged a conclusion of law by the trial court that factors weigh in favor of the checkpoint serving a public interest and that it is therefore reasonable and constitutional. The appellate Court found that the officers’ testimony during the hearing revealed that the checkpoint was limited in time and location and that it operated to advance a legitimate public concern. Thus, this conclusion of law was properly supported. Mr. Flores-Roca also challenged a conclusion of law by the trial court that the checkpoint had proper supervisory authority and was proper pursuant to State and Federal law. The appellate Court found that this conclusion of was proper as there was testimony at the hearing the police department’s “Traffic Record Check” sufficiently served as the request form for the checkpoint. Furthermore, there was testimony that subordinate officers were briefed on the approved checkpoint prior to arrival at the site and that they were also informed of the protocols to be followed.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals ultimately decided that the order of the trial court should not be disturbed. However, this case does show that with respect to checkpoints, even if a law enforcement agency does not follow its own process and procedures to the letter, in terms of establishing the checkpoint, it can still pass constitutional muster if its primary purpose is legitimate and if the public interest it serves outweighs any resulting inconveniences.
Recent Comments