Kinslow v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Kinslow v. Commonwealth

660 S.W.2d 677, 1983 Ky. App. LEXIS 305

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

DecidedSeptember 16, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by38 cases

This text of 660 S.W.2d 677 (Kinslow v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kinslow v. Commonwealth, 660 S.W.2d 677, 1983 Ky. App. LEXIS 305 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

HAYES, Chief Judge:

This is a criminal case in which the defendant, Gary Kinslow, appeals from his conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicants, operating a motor vehicle without a valid operator’s license, criminal mischief in the third degree and third-degree escape. The defendant appealed his case to Warren Circuit *678 Court which affirmed his convictions. This Court granted discretionary review.

The parties, pursuant to CR 75.15, have submitted an agreed statement of the facts of the case. The sole issue is whether or not a road block established by the Kentucky State Police and the Warren County Sheriff’s Department violated the appellant’s constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The purpose of the road block was to stop all traffic heading north on Old Louisville Road and determine whether any drivers were operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and apprehend those who were in violation of traffic statutes including operating a motor vehicle without a valid operator’s license, a valid insurance sticker or a valid registration.

The appellant was stopped and asked to produce a driver’s license but was unable to do so. He was thereafter asked to get out of the vehicle, and at that time the state police trooper noticed that he might be under the influence of alcohol and performed a field sobriety or agility test. At the conclusion of the test, the appellant was placed under arrest, and the convictions mentioned above resulted. The question is whether the road block was conducted in a manner not permitting the “unconstrained discretion” inherent in some road block situations and condemned in Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). The key here is the fact that all vehicles were stopped. Therefore, the officers did not exercise the discretion referred to and condemned in Delaware v. Prouse, supra. In that case the officers used their discretion to pick which automobiles they would stop for a spot check. That amounted to too much discretion on the part of the officers and therefore was violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

We hold, therefore, the search was not illegal, and we affirm the decision of the Warren Circuit Court.

All concur.

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

HAYES, Chief Judge:

This is a criminal case in which the defendant, Gary Kinslow, appeals from his conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicants, operating a motor vehicle without a valid operator’s license, criminal mischief in the third degree and third-degree escape. The defendant appealed his case to Warren Circuit *678 Court which affirmed his convictions. This Court granted discretionary review.

The parties, pursuant to CR 75.15, have submitted an agreed statement of the facts of the case. The sole issue is whether or not a road block established by the Kentucky State Police and the Warren County Sheriff’s Department violated the appellant’s constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The purpose of the road block was to stop all traffic heading north on Old Louisville Road and determine whether any drivers were operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and apprehend those who were in violation of traffic statutes including operating a motor vehicle without a valid operator’s license, a valid insurance sticker or a valid registration.

The appellant was stopped and asked to produce a driver’s license but was unable to do so. He was thereafter asked to get out of the vehicle, and at that time the state police trooper noticed that he might be under the influence of alcohol and performed a field sobriety or agility test. At the conclusion of the test, the appellant was placed under arrest, and the convictions mentioned above resulted. The question is whether the road block was conducted in a manner not permitting the “unconstrained discretion” inherent in some road block situations and condemned in Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). The key here is the fact that all vehicles were stopped. Therefore, the officers did not exercise the discretion referred to and condemned in Delaware v. Prouse, supra. In that case the officers used their discretion to pick which automobiles they would stop for a spot check. That amounted to too much discretion on the part of the officers and therefore was violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

We hold, therefore, the search was not illegal, and we affirm the decision of the Warren Circuit Court.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

660 S.W.2d 677, 1983 Ky. App. LEXIS 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinslow-v-commonwealth-kyctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack