IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS  
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN  
PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, 
) 
CRIMINAL NO. ST -09-CR-141 
) 
Plaintiff, ) 
V.I. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 607(a) 
) 
vs. 
) 
) 
ADAM LAWRENCE EICHENAUER, 
) 
(D.O.B.l0-17-79)
I 
Defendant. 
) 
) 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
THIS MATTER came on for a suppression hearing on July 6, 2009. The People were 
represented by Courtney Reese, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, and the Defendant was 
represented by Sharon Schoenleben, Esq. I Having heard and considered the testimony during 
the suppression hearing, this Court will grant Defendant's Motion to Suppress. 
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 
The People called as witnesses, Officer Derek Callwood and Detective Cassandra 
Vincent. Officer Callwood testified that on March 18,2009, the police had commenced a traffic 
enforcement initiative in the area of Centerline Road at the intersection in Coral Bay, St. John. 
The initiative was commenced for the purpose of discovering traffic violations such as driving 
without seat belts or persons driving without licenses. Five police officers participated in the 
initiative on this date including Officers Callwood, Hendricks and Hodge along with Detective 
Cassandra Vincent and Sergeant Angelo Hill. Although the officers attempted to stop every 
vehicle at the intersection, Officer Callwood testified that they were not able to stop every 
At the beginning of the hearing it was brought to the Court's attention that the Defendant was, in fact, the 
son of defense Attorney Sharon Schoenleben. The Court is not aware of any ethical problem with a parent 
representing his or her child in a criminal proceeding, and for that reason, defense counsel was allowed to continue 
in her representation ofthe Defendant. 
People a/the Virgin Islands v .Adam Eichenauer 
Criminal No. ST-09-CR-141 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
Page 2 of6 
vehicle because of manpower considerations, and he estimated that about twenty (20) percent of 
the vehicle passing by were not stopped by the police. 
At approximately 5:30 p.m., Detective Vincent stopped the vehicle driven by the 
Defendant, Adam Eichenauer ("Eichenauer" or "the Defendant"), a green Suzuki. She testified 
that the vehicle was stopped because it was speeding. Both Detective Vincent and Officer 
Call wood testified that when they approached the vehicle to give the Defendant a warning about 
speeding, the officers smelled marijuana coming from the vehicle. Detective Vincent asked 
Eichenauer if he was smoking in the vehicle, and he replied that he did not have a drivers' 
license on him. Detective Vincent repeated the question about whe~her or not he was smoking, 
and Eichenauer stated that there was a roach in the ashtray of the vehicle, and he showed it to the 
officer. Eichenauer also advised Detective Vincent that he was running late for his yoga class. 
Eichenauer was then advised of his constitutional rights, and was told to exit the vehicle. 
After he was outside of the vehicle, Detective Vincent asked if there was anything else in the 
vehicle, and Eichenauer stated that there was some "weed" behind the passenger seat on the 
ground. A search of the vehicle was then conducted, and a quantity of marijuana was retrieved 
from behind the passenger seat on the floor of the vehicle. 
After finding the marijuana, 
Eichenauer was placed under arrest. 
The defense called two witnesses. The first witness, Paul Humble ("Humble"), stated 
that the attorney for the Defendant was advised on the night of Defendant's arrest that no bail 
had been set for the Defendant. He also testified that in his opinion, one could not speed on the 
stretch of road in Coral Bay where the Defendant was stopped because there were potholes in the 
area and the road was not straight. 
Eichenauer also testified during the suppression hearing. He testified that he was late for 
yoga class on the day when he was stopped, and that he was wearing short pants and a white tee 
People ofthe Virgin Islands v .Adam Eichenauer 
Criminal No. ST-09-CR-14l 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
30f6 
shirt. He denied speeding and agreed with Humble that it was not possible to speed in the area, 
because of the potholes and the fact that the road curved, and that he came to a slow stop when 
he was told to stop by Detective Vincent. He stated that while he was stopped, several other 
automobiles passed by and were not stopped by the officers. At one point, he heard one of the 
officers say that they should not stop what they were doing, and that they should wait to see if 
they could get one more, apparently referring to another motorist. 
On rebuttal, Detective Vincent stated that the Defendant was in fact speeding and that the 
roadway was straight for at least one hundred feet from the intersection and that there were no 
potholes. 
DISCUSSION 
The Court must determine whether or not the marijuana that was seized from the 
automobile was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 
provisions of the Fourth Amendment are made applicable to the Virgin Islands by Section 3 of 
the Revised Organic Act. 
If the marijuana was illegally seized in violation of the U.S. 
Constitution and the Revised Organic Act, it must be suppressed. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 
(1968), provides that the police may briefly detain a person without violating the Fourth 
Amendment if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or 
is about to commit a crime and that they may "conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the 
Officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that [such] criminal activity is afoot."!d. Brief 
detentions which result from stops to enforce traffic laws are also usually considered reasonable 
under the Fourth Amendment. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977) (there was no 
question about the reasonableness of the initial stop of the automobile where it was being driven 
in violation ofthe traffic laws of the state). 
People ofthe Virgin Islands v .Adam Eichenauer 
Criminal No. ST-09-CR-141 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
40f6 
In this case, one must detennine whether the original traffic stop was reasonable. If the 
stop was based upon the alleged traffic initiative, the Court will have to determine whether or not 
this procedure passes muster under the Fourth Amendment. To make this determination, the 
Court refers to cases interpreting the constitutionality of such traffic actions. The Supreme Court 
has frowned upon random traffic stops of motorists to check licenses and registrations, and such 
stops are considered unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless they are strictly limited 
in time and place to prevent them from being arbitrary interferences. In Delaware v. Prouse, 
440 U.S. 648,663 (1979), the Court held that "except in those situations in which there is at least 
articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not 
registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of 
law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the 
registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment." The Supreme 
Court further elaborated that its holding did not prevent states "from developing methods for spot 
checks that involve less intrusion" than random traffic stops or "that do not involve the 
unconstrained exercise of discretion." !d. Questioning motorists in roadblocks which apply to all 
motorists would be considered reasonable, but in Prouse, the Supreme Court frowned upon the 
practice of stopping and questioning motorists based upon the "unbridled discretion" of law 
enforcement. Id. 
In Government of the Virgin Islands v. Ali, 45 V.I. 164 (Terr. Ct. 2003), this Court 
applied the principles espoused in Prouse to determine the constitutionality of a traffic stop 
based upon a verbal command of a supervisory officer conducted in st. Croix pursuant to a 
roadblock in which every motorist in a defined area was to have been stopped and questioned 
about drivers' license, registration and insurance. As the Court states in Ali, the plan to stop all 
motorists at the checkpoint, "did not happen" and "Officers permitted cars to pass through the 
People ofthe Virgin Islands v .Adam Eichenauer 
Criminal No. ST-09-CR-141 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
50f6 
roadblock while they were engaged in checking" the credentials of the drivers of other cars that 
had previously been stopped. Id. at 166. Since there was no reason for stopping the motorist in 
Ali, other than the verbal command of the supervisory officer, and since the checkpoint 
procedure was only sporadically enforced, the Court found that the stop of Ali did not comport 
with the Constitution and granted the motion to suppress. Id. at 171-72. 
In the instant case, there was no evidence presented that the traffic initiative was 
supported by a written directive, and that the officers had to follow any particular procedures in 
following the initiative. Indeed from the evidence submitted in Court, there did not seem to be 
any particular protocol for how the initiative was to be conducted, and it appears that the 
decision to check for the licenses and registrations of motorists in Coral Bay, St. John, was 
simply an impromptu decision made by law enforcement officers in St. John. Indeed, although 
the so-called "initiative" was dressed up nicely in Court, the Court takes judicial notice of the 
probable cause fact sheet in which it was described simply as the conducting of random traffic 
stops by the police. The fact that the police made no attempt to stop every car that passed them in 
Coral Bay adds to this Court's assessment that the police were simply conducting random stops 
of automobiles in Coral Bay on the date of this incident and that the stop and search of 
Eichenauer's car may have been in violation ofthe principles ofProuse and Ali. 
The police, however, stated that Eichenauer's vehicle was stopped because he was 
traveling at a high rate of speed. Although there is admittedly some evidence to support the fact 
that Eichenauer may have had reason to speed,2 the Court finds it difficult if not impossible to 
dissociate the fact that the primary reason that the police were at the location at the time in 
2 The fact that Eichenauer was late for a class at the time gives him a reason to exceed the speed limit. However, 
Detective Vincent had never given a motorist a speeding ticket, did not give Eichenauer a ticket for speeding on the 
date in question, and did not know how to estimate speed. These facts lead the Court to believe that the primary 
reason that Eichenauer was stopped was because ofthe traffic initiative, and not because he was speeding. 
People ofthe Virgin Islands l' .Adam Eichenauer 
Criminal No. ST-09-CR-141 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
Page 6 of6 
question was to set up a roadblock which was arbitrarily enforced. The Court finds, under these 
facts, that Eichenauer was not stopped for speeding, but because of the traffic initiative. Since 
this initiative was enforced in an arbitrary manner, it was subject to the unfettered discretion of 
the police and not reasonable under the dictates of the Fourth Amendment. 
Since the stop of Eichenauer's vehicle was not reasonable, the physical evidence and 
statements will have to be suppressed as violative of the Fourth Amendment and the Revised 
Organic Act. Therefore, they will be excluded from evidence. 
Accordingly, it is hereby 
ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Suppress tangible evidence and statements is 
GRANTED; and it is further 
ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be served 
personally upon the Defendant; and a copy thereof shall be directed to counsel ofrecord. 
/1
DATED: 
August j 
,2009 
;If/
1/
/./ 
.....~. ~ 
.e ,--·/"v
/--.,- r . 
.-,--~f-==:::.....!:~~~o..e~.... 
/ 
/ 
JAMESS. CARROLL III 
! 
/ 
Judge of the Superior Court 
f
of the Virgin Islands 
V  
ATTEST: 
VENETIA H. VELAZQUEZ, ESQUIRE 
Clerk Of~O,urt .... _ ~ 
BVt~~:-----­
Court Clerk Supervisor__
~/:3/ IJtL