State v. Crutchfield

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Crutchfield

407 S.W.3d 693, 2013 WL 4004316, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 902

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 6, 2013·No. No. WD 75998·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Hank Crutchfield appeals the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty of driving while intoxicated after a bench trial. Crutchfield claims that the trial court erred in: (1) denying his pretrial motion to suppress which alleged that driver’s license checkpoints are a per se violation of the Fourth Amendment; and (2) admitting evidence of a “Driver License Checkpoint Written Plan” because the Plan did not satisfy requirements for ensuring that a checkpoint is not an unconstitutional random stop. Because there was reasonable suspicion for the stop of Crutchfield, irrespective of the driver’s license checkpoint, we are not required to reach the issues raised by Crutchfield on appeal. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Hank Crutchfield appeals the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty of driving while intoxicated after a bench trial. Crutchfield claims that the trial court erred in: (1) denying his pretrial motion to suppress which alleged that driver’s license checkpoints are a per se violation of the Fourth Amendment; and (2) admitting evidence of a “Driver License Checkpoint Written Plan” because the Plan did not satisfy requirements for ensuring that a checkpoint is not an unconstitutional random stop. Because there was reasonable suspicion for the stop of Crutchfield, irrespective of the driver’s license checkpoint, we are not required to reach the issues raised by Crutchfield on appeal. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Crutchfield, 407 S.W.3d 693, 2013 WL 4004316, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 902 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

407 S.W.3d 693 (State v. Crutchfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.