DISTRICT COURT DIVISION
___________ COUNTY                FILE NO.  


                                 ORDER GRANTING
                                  MOTION TO SUPPRESS

     THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard and being heard in the District Court of __________ County before the Honorable Judge _________ beginning on August 10, 2009, continuing on August 11, 2009 and ending September 8, 2009.  The State was represented by Assistant District Attorney _______ and the defendant by ____________.  After hearing the evidence and arguments of the parties the court enters the following:

                     FINDINGS OF FACT

     1.    Trooper ________ of the State Highway Patrol was at a checkpoint designed and supervised by the _________ Police Department on November 1, 2008.

     2.    Defendant arrived at that checkpoint and was eventually arrested by Trooper _____ and charged with Driving While Impaired.    

     3.    Sergeant ___________ of the ________ Police Department was the supervisor of this checkpoint, though it was a multi-agency checkpoint.

     4.    Prior to the checkpoint, as is his normal procedure, Sergeant ________ held a meeting between participants from the _______ Police Department, the _________ Police Department, and the State Highway Patrol describing the procedures for this checkpoint.  Sergeant _______ passed out the checkpoint plan which noted that they were to stop every car.

     5.    In addition to the checkpoint plan Sergeant _______ gave oral orders to all officers involved in checkpoint that every officer at the checkpoint had authority to vary the plan if he felt that traffic was becoming a problem.

     6.    That 5A of the checkpoint plan notes that "the pattern for stopping vehicles is that every vehicle is to be stopped if traffic conditions create a hazard or undue delay of  motorists the officer in charge may temporarily alter this pattern....", and undue delay/hazard are not defined anywhere in the plan.

     7.    Sergeant _________ at one point left the scene with an arrestee.

     8.    Sergeant _________ for several reasons was unable to supervise the checkpoint as is required by the plan.  He orally modified the plan and allowed every officer at the checkpoint to modify the plan and temporarily alter the pattern by letting cars through if that officer believed that the conditions were creating a hazard or undue delay of motorists.

     8.    There was no objective criterion to determine when there was a hazard or undue delay, and no guidance from Sergeant _______ on that question.

     9.    N.C.G.S. 20-16.3A controls checking stations and roadblocks, and under paragraph 2A the General Assembly has a averred "no individual officer may be given to discretion as to which vehicle is stopped..."

     10.    No evidence was produced and Sergeant __________ could not tell the court whether signs were put in at all four corners of the checkpoint.

     11.    Sergeant ________ picked out the location because "we normally do one here because the amount of traffic."

     12.    No one was specifically put in charge at any intersection.  In fact, every officer was given the authority to change the pattern of stopping vehicles.

     13.    The checkpoint location was not chosen randomly but was chosen because there is a lot of traffic at this intersection, and for no other reason.
     16.     There was no contingency plan for unexpected occurrences even though it was expected that traffic would back up at times during this checkpoint.



                 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

     1.    This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this action.
      2.    This Court has reviewed the findings of fact and finds the same reasonable
            and justified under the circumstances.
     3.     That the checkpoint set up on November 1, 2008 failed to follow the rules set out
            by the United States Supreme Court and the North Carolina Supreme Court and                           Court of Appeals and violated N.C.G.S. 20-16.3A in that every officers had complete discretion to vary the pattern for stopping vehicles.
     4.    That the stop of the defendant's vehicle was improper as it was not supported by                reasonable suspicion or probable cause and was not allowed under one of the recognized exceptions to those requirements.
     5.     That the checking station as it was operated violated the United States Constitution and the North Carolina Constitution in that it gave every officer at the scene discretion to vary the pattern for stopping vehicles.
     6.     The State has had an opportunity to review this order and has expressed disagreement with findings of fact ___________ and conclusions of law, and no other paragraphs.


     1.    That all evidence gathered after the stop of the defendant's vehicle is suppressed.    
This is the__________day of__________________, 20______.

                             Judge Presiding