JETTIE K. HARTSFIELD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1993-12-29
No. 92-2519
STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.
629 So. 2d 1020 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1993) Caution
Cited by 10 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Jettie Hartsfield appeals the denial of her motion to suppress evidence from a DUI roadblock, arguing the state failed to introduce written guidelines governing the roadblock operation. The court reverses, holding that written guidelines are essential to validate DUI roadblock operations under Florida law.


Holding

A written set of uniform guidelines is essential and must be introduced into evidence before a DUI roadblock can be upheld. Testimony alone about standard operating procedures, no matter how consistent with constitutional standards, cannot serve as a functional equivalent of written guidelines.


Headnotes

[1] A DUI roadblock operation is fatally defective in the absence of specific written guidelines governing the conduct of officers.

[2] Testimony regarding standard operating procedures for a DUI roadblock is not the functional equivalent of introducing written guidelines into evidence.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“it is essential that a written set of uniform guidelines be issued before a roadblock can be utilized”

The court establishes the mandatory requirement for written guidelines in DUI roadblock operations, rejecting reliance on officer testimony alone.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Broward County Sheriff's deputies conducted a DUI roadblock operation and arrested Hartsfield. At the suppression hearing, officers testified about st…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
DELL, Chief Judge.

DELL, Chief Judge.

Jettie K. Hartsfield appeals from an order denying her motion to suppress physical evidence, statements and admissions obtained by Broward County Sheriffs deputies in connection with a DUI roadblock operation. Appellant contends the order must be reversed because the state failed to introduce into evidence a written set of uniform guide lines for operating the roadblock. We agree and reverse.

The trial court, in its denial of appellant’s motion, described in'detail the standard operating procedures governing implementation of the roadblock. The trial court based its findings upon testimony of the arresting officers at the evidentiary hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress. The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that the officers canned out the DUI roadblock operation in a manner consistent with the standards enunciated in State v. Jones, 483 So. 2d 433 (Fla.1986), which prescribe that “officers carry out a search pursuant to a plan embodying specific neutral criteria which limit the conduct of the individual officers.” Id. at 438.

We must, however, reverse the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to suppress since the trial court concluded:

Although no written set of uniform guidelines was introduced into evidence, the deputies’ testimonies about their standard operating procedure is the functional equivalent of the state’s introducing written guidelines, but see, State v. Wagner, 821 S.W. 2d 288 (Tex.App. —Dallas 1992). The plan, formulated and supervised by either the Sergeant or a Lieutenant, restricted the discretion of the field officers as to both operating procedures and the selection of vehicles.

(emphasis supplied). As noted by the trial court, the state did not introduce written guidelines into evidence. Moreover, the officers did not testify that the roadblock standard operating procedures were in written form. The absence of specific written guidelines renders the roadblock operation fatally defective under State v. Jones. In that case the Supreme Court of Florida stated in part:

Because DUI roadblocks involve seizures made without any articulable suspicion of illegal activity, most states examining this issue have ruled that such roadblocks stand or fall based on some set of neutral criteria governing the officers in the field. Courts requiring such a neutral plan do so out of a fear that unbridled discretion in the field invites abuse. We agree and find that it is essential that a written set of uniform guidelines be issued before a roadblock can be utilized.

Law enforcement officials must conduct sobriety checkpoints so as to minimize the discretion of field officers, thereby restricting the potential intrusion into the public’s constitutional liberties. Written guidelines should cover in detail the procedures which field officers are to follow at the roadblock. Ideally, these guidelines should set out with reasonable specificity procedures regarding the selection of vehicles, detention techniques, duty assignments, and the disposition of vehicles. Of course, if the guidelines fail to cover each of these matters they need not necessarily fail. Rather, courts should view each set of guidelines as a whole when determining the plan’s sufficiency.

Id. at 438 (citations omitted).

Accordingly, we reverse the order denying appellant’s motion to suppress and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Campbell v. State, 679 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 1996)
    …PER CURIAM. We have for review Campbell v. State, 667 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), which expressly and directly conflicts with State v. Jones, 483 So. 2d 433 (Fla.1986), and Hartsfield v. State, 629 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), on the issue of whether advance written guidelines are required before the police may conduct a roadblock. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. For the reasons expressed below,…
    1 / 3
  • Ware v. State, 679 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
    …thing unlawful prior to the stop. The county court found that the roadblock, however well-intentioned, fell short of the safeguards established by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Jones, 483 So. 2d 433 (Fla.1986). See also Hartsfield v. State, 629 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Moreover, although the roadblocks were designed to enhance the safety and well-being of the public housing residents, the scope of those procedures exceeded anything permitted by Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U…
  • Campbell v. State, 667 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
    …gument of unfettered discretion on the part of the officers, appellant contends that the absence of specific written guidelines rendered the roadblock fatally defective. He cites to State v. Jones, 483 So. 2d 433 (Fla.1986), and Hartsfield v. State, 629 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), which relies exclusively on Jones. The Florida Supreme Court in Jones indicates that “it is essential that a written set of uniform guidelines be issued before a roadblock can be utilized.” 483 So. 2d at 438. The court stated th…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw