People v. John BB., 56 N.Y.2d 482 (1982)

A roving roadblock, conducted uniformly and without discrimination in a sparsely populated area with a high incidence of recent burglaries, does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures when its purpose is to gather information about the burglaries.

Summary

Following a series of burglaries in a remote area, police established a roving roadblock, stopping all vehicles to gather information. The defendants were stopped, and a subsequent search of their vehicle revealed stolen items, leading to their confessions. The New York Court of Appeals held that the roadblock was constitutional because it was conducted uniformly, without discrimination, and served a legitimate purpose of gathering information in an area where traditional investigative methods were impractical. The court balanced the state’s interest in investigating the crimes against the individual’s right to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.

Facts

Approximately 40 burglaries occurred in vacant summer homes in a sparsely populated area of Sullivan County. Investigator Connors initiated surveillance, intending to stop all vehicles in the area and interview the occupants. Defendant Stephen CC.’s vehicle was stopped by police. Upon request, Stephen CC. exited the vehicle to provide his license and registration. Connors observed a rifle case and flashlights inside the car. The rifle case contained a pellet gun, which matched the description of one reported stolen. Audio speakers were found in the trunk. The defendants gave conflicting statements and were taken to headquarters.

Procedural History

The defendants were indicted on multiple counts of burglary. They moved to suppress their confessions and the evidence seized, arguing the stop was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion. The defendants pleaded guilty to attempted burglary and were adjudicated youthful offenders. The Appellate Division affirmed, upholding the validity of the roving roadblock. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the case.

Issue(s)

Whether a roving roadblock, conducted in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner in a sparsely populated area with a recent series of burglaries, constitutes an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Holding

Yes, because the stop of the vehicle was made pursuant to a nonarbitrary, nondiscriminatory, and uniform procedure, involving the stop of all vehicles located in the heavily burglarized area, in order to facilitate the concededly legitimate function of acquiring information regarding the recent burglaries.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals recognized that stopping an automobile constitutes a seizure subject to constitutional limitations. The reasonableness of the seizure depends on balancing the State’s interest against the individual’s interest in freedom from governmental interference. The court emphasized that the police procedure was nonarbitrary, nondiscriminatory, and uniform, mitigating the potential for abuse. The court distinguished the case from others involving random and discriminatory stops, such as United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. The court noted, “the elimination of the element of arbitrariness has been identified time and again as a critical factor in determining the reasonableness of official investigative activity of an intrusive nature.” The court found that the pellet gun and speakers were lawfully seized as the rifle case was in plain view, and its contents were examined for the officers’ protection. The pellet gun’s identification as potential contraband, combined with conflicting statements and information about the speakers, provided probable cause to search the vehicle’s trunk. The court stated, “the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the police from employing a roving roadblock in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner in a sparsely populated area in which there has been a recent series of burglaries.”