# Lookingbill v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · March 20, 2007 · 157 P.3d 130

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796721

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert Jack LOOKINGBILL, Appellant v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** March 20, 2007
- **Citations:** 157 P.3d 130; 2007 OK CR 7; 2007 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 8; 2007 WL 851338
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Lumpkin
- **Judges:** Chapel, Johnson, Lewis, Lumpkin
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796721

## Opinion text

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge:
Concur In Part/Dissent In Part:
T1 I concur with the Court's decision affirming the validity of the drivers license checkpoint in this case, together with the judgment and sentence rendered. However, I cannot join in the adoption of the procedural requirements set forth in Section V. The "requirements" set forth by this Court have nothing to do with the adjudication of the judgment and sentence in this case. There is absolutely no evidence in this record, or for that matter, in any other case presented to this Court, that the procedures sought to be adopted are necessary. Further, this Court has not provided a remedy for those situations where their procedural requirements are not followed or are only partially followed.
¶ 2 The Court's attempt to tell law enforcement agencies how to operate checkpoints is only dicta, which renders this opinion merely an advisory opinion. This Court has consistently held that it does not issue advisory opinions. See Murphy v. State, 2006 OK CR 3, ¶ 1 , 127 P.3d 1158 ("This Court does not issue advisory opinions"); Canady v. Reynolds, 1994 OK CR 54, ¶ 9 , 880 P.2d 891 , 394; ("this Court cannot otherwise issue advisory opinions"); Matter of L.N., 1980 OK CR 72 , 4, 617 P.2d 239 , 240 ("An advisory opinion does not fall within the Court's original or statutory jurisdiction; neither does it come within its appellate review. To offer advice in the form of an opinion would be to interfere with the responsibility of the trial court to exercise the powers confided to it").
¶ 3 This Court's action in this case does not adhere to the concept of the Rule of Law but is more of a legislative action than a judicial action. Policy decisions are for legislatures, not courts. All this decision reflects is appellate judges pontificating on what they would like to have law enforcement do in checkpoint situations. It is also another attempt by the Court to create precedent based, not on the law as adjudicated in a case, but upon dicta in a single opinion. For those reasons, I dissent to the adoption of any type of "procedural requirements".

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796721. Public record. Not legal advice.