Commonwealth v. Lovelace

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Lovelace

521 N.E.2d 390, 402 Mass. 1002, 1988 Mass. LEXIS 93

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 14, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 521 N.E.2d 390 (Commonwealth v. Lovelace) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Lovelace, 521 N.E.2d 390, 402 Mass. 1002, 1988 Mass. LEXIS 93 (Mass. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant was stopped at a State police “sobriety checkpoint” (roadblock). An officer detected the odor of alcohol on the defendant. He was directed to drive to the “pick-up” area adjacent to the roadblock. Once there, the defendant refused to produce his license and registration, and was arrested for violating G. L. c. 90, § 25 (1986 ed.). The defendant was found guilty of violating G. L. c. 90, § 25, and appealed. We granted the defendant’s application for direct appellate review.

The defendant stipulates that the roadblock was conducted in accordance with the guidelines we approved in Commonwealth v. Trumble, 396 Mass. 81 (1985). He does not challenge the propriety of his having been directed to the pick-up area. His sole contention is that, before the roadblock seizure and his accompanying arrest can be found to be lawful, the Commonwealth must show that there is no equally effective, yet less intrusive, method of enforcing G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1986 ed.). A majority of the court today has rejected that contention in Commonwealth v. Shields, ante 162 (1988). A majority of the court therefore concludes that the judgment in this case is affirmed.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The defendant was stopped at a State police “sobriety checkpoint” (roadblock). An officer detected the odor of alcohol on the defendant. He was directed to drive to the “pick-up” area adjacent to the roadblock. Once there, the defendant refused to produce his license and registration, and was arrested for violating G. L. c. 90, § 25 (1986 ed.). The defendant was found guilty of violating G. L. c. 90, § 25, and appealed. We granted the defendant’s application for direct appellate review.

The defendant stipulates that the roadblock was conducted in accordance with the guidelines we approved in Commonwealth v. Trumble, 396 Mass. 81 (1985). He does not challenge the propriety of his having been directed to the pick-up area. His sole contention is that, before the roadblock seizure and his accompanying arrest can be found to be lawful, the Commonwealth must show that there is no equally effective, yet less intrusive, method of enforcing G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1986 ed.). A majority of the court today has rejected that contention in Commonwealth v. Shields, ante 162 (1988). A majority of the court therefore concludes that the judgment in this case is affirmed.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 N.E.2d 390, 402 Mass. 1002, 1988 Mass. LEXIS 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-lovelace-mass-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack