D) Edmond case
In the conclusion to his brief in support of suppression, the defendant
claims that the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office has enacted a
defactonarcotics checkpoint and that such checkpoints are
unconstitutional under City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32
(2000). We find that the instant case is distinguishable from the Edmond
Edmond dealt with a police checkpoint, a roadblock where the police
stopped a predetermined number of vehicles. Edmond, 531 U.S. at 34. A
police officer approached the car, told the driver that he is being
stopped at a drug checkpoint and asked for his driver's license and
registration card. The police officer would examine the driver for signs
of impairment and conduct an open-view examination of the vehicle from
outside while a narcotics detection dog walked around the outside of the
vehicle. Id. at 35. In the instant case, the bus was already stopped when
the police officer approached it. N.T. 6/25/0 2 at 32. Before talking to
the driver, Detective Schwartz did not block its path in any fashion.
Id. at 33. Schwartz did not tell the driver to stop, but requested that
he do so if he had the time. Id. at 33-34. It was a voluntary search and
seizure, not a roadblock. Accordingly, Edmond is not dispositive of the
issue with which we are presented.
After a review of the search and seizure in the instant case, we find
no constitutional violation. The driver of the bus voluntarily and freely
consented to a search of the bus, and the defendant likewise voluntarily
and freely consented. The totality of the circumstances reveal that the
investigators did not utilize duress or coercion in order to gain
compliance with their requests. Accordingly, the motion to suppress will
be denied. A n appropriate order follows.
AND NOW, to wit, this 28th day of August 2002, the defendant's motion
to suppress [Doc. 24] is hereby DENIED.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.