leaves the officers with unbridled discretion as to the time of operation; and (2) the plan is flawed because while it requires a 30-minute minimum operational duration, the plan does not establish a maximum time, thus allowing the officers at the checkpoint to determine the duration of the operation. These omissions, appellant contends, render the checkpoint constitutionally unsound, thus violating his Fourth Amendment rights. “As a preliminary matter, checkpoints with the primary objective of enforcing safety requirements are constitutional.” Wright v. Commonwealth, 52 Va.App. 263, 268, 663 S.E.2d 108, 111 (2008) (citing Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 658, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1398, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979)); see also Palmer v. Commonwealth, 36 Va.App. 169, 172, 549 S.E.2d 29, 30 (2001) (<HOLDING>). The Fourth Amendment protects people from
holding that a man standing between two insured vehicles while attempting to jump start one of them was occupying them when one of the vehicles between which he was standing was struck by a third vehicle holding description all of the goods then owned or to be owned in the future sufficient to cover equipment and vehicles holding that police officers may stop vehicles when they observe minor traffic violations holding that the sugar tree ruse did not violate the fourth amendment when officers only stopped vehicles for minor traffic violations holding the purpose of a checkpoint was valid when officers stopped vehicles to look for any violations on the vehicles such as drivers license equipment or inspection