ÿWPCÀ §U¬»Ó© ck&¹”.x”2þ ç°ØºÅZ¨ ‘é_Q8«¼–…‘jvö a÷›ì ‹¬Á ë ͪ+Gf«gSŠJéŸ4ò5?ßϳ¼L¾ (ÈÅÁØ #X{‡o#œàl¬b Ò¿ú+â•Ýæ9M²tX5x¶ƒ\3‰ =!‘ •g=^ÍßÕüÒs‡]@@Ì´³r4ÅÉÊQe¼+¶{Üëw“QÞ1}ŠÃ6)¬µ*Æ9„5æÝn G9Z:ÜãJ·#ëXøïÙü¼®1°:ßV„-ौÛé’ZâD´x® š—°F¾OáñC€mhÆ´-k&4¸wùÒþÏ—àñCI[¬µE_£hÇj„»òééàÖ—<\¿òlÝhVö~”.´Æ‰6Ïš¸^èí¿°D‚ Ê 3øH®Ma®Ñ³au©M™ Ý7íÁ§÷$&CIŠNê8–¿Û9‹·mYR˜c_€¸lç…}ÛëΛOÕvúFvmÞÍiÛb(Z:T_ç{îÅÃu ˜ˆ¥!% ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àPortable€DUI€testing€equipment€was€not€brought€to€the€scene,€asÐ º' #' Ðwould€be€expected€if€the€checkpoint€was€designed€primarily€to€detectÐ  (ð#( Ðthose€offenders.€€No€pretext€has€been€shown.€General€Order€410€hasÐ †)Ö$) Ðbeen€complied€with€.€.€.€.€€This€court€therefore€concludes€that,€on€theÐ l*¼%* Ðfacts€presented€here,€the€roadblock€was€properly€established€andÐ R+¢&+ Ðconducted€under€General€Order€410€rather€than€410„1€or€òòDowneyóó.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐTherefore,€defendant's€stop€was€not€unconstitutional€and€the€evidenceÐ ° Ðultimately€gathered€as€a€result€of€that€stop€should€not€be€suppressed.€Ð –æ ÐÔ#†¼OP»XX2lÂ#ÔÔ‡X2lX»¼OPÔ€€Ð|Ì` x` x Ðà  àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€complains€that€a€roadblock€for€the€purpose€of€determining€theÐ b² Ðvalidity€of€driver's€licenses€is€unconstitutional.€€He€argues€that€the€state's€interest€in€checking€driver'sÐ H˜ Ðlicenses€is€not€sufficient€to€warrant€a€roadblock€intrusion€on€individuals€who€have€the€right€to€be€freeÐ . ~ Ðfrom€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrown€v.€Texasóó,€443€U.S.€47€(1979);€òòMichigan€v.Ð  d ÐSitzóó,€496€U.S.€444€(1990).€€The€defendant€submits€that€the€factors€determining€the€constitutionalityÐ ú J Ðof€a€roadblock€are€"the€gravity€of€the€public€concerns€served€by€the€seizure,€the€degree€to€which€theÐ à 0 Ðseizure€advances€the€public€interest,€and€the€severity€of€the€interference€with€individual€liberty."€€443Ð Æ   ÐU.S.€at€50„51.€€The€defendant€contends€that€whether€the€roadblock€is€a€sobriety€checkpoint€or€aÐ ¬ ü  Ðtraffic€enforcement€checkpoint,€the€intrusive€effect€upon€the€individual€is€the€same.€€He€cites€theÐ ’â  Ðfollowing€answers€by€Trooper€McAllister€to€the€questions€of€the€trial€judge€as€supportive€of€hisÐ xÈ  Ðclaims:Ð ^®  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:à0h` x` xàTrooper,€why€did€Sergeant€Ray,€I€suppose,Ð *z  Ðdecide€to€conduct€one€kind€of€roadblockÐ ` Ðinstead€of€the€other?ÐöFhxhx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMcALLISTER:à0h` x` xàUsually,€all€we€hold€is€the€traffic€enforcement„Ð Â Ðtype€roadblock.€€The€sobriety€roadblocks,Ð ¨ø Ð410.1,€requires€a€minimum€of€six€officers€andÐ ŽÞ Ðthat€the€colonel€pre„approve€it€five€days€priorÐ tÄ Ðto€that.ÐZªhxhx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:à0h` x` xàSo€you€just€decided€not€to€do€that€and€you'reÐ &v Ðgoing€to€do€the€other€kind€and€catch€the€sameÐ  \ Ðpeople?ÐòBhxhx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMcALLISTER:à0h` x` xàI've€been€on€the€„€€for€two€years,€all€I've€everÐ ¾ Ðheld€is€a€traffic€enforcement„type€roadblock.Фôhxhx ÐÔ#†¼OP»XX2lü!#ÔÔ‡X2lX»¼OPÔ€Ð Š Ú Ðà  àIn€òòDowneyóó,€our€supreme€court,€citing€the€holding€in€òòBrownóó€with€approval,€observed€asÐ p!À  Ðfollows:Ð V"¦! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€central€concern€in€balancing€these€competing€considerations€in€aÐ "$r# Ðvariety€of€settings€has€been€to€assure€that€an€individual's€reasonableÐ %X $ Ðexpectation€of€privacy€is€not€subject€to€arbitrary€invasions€solely€atÐ î%>!% Ðthe€unfettered€discretion€of€officers€in€the€field.€.€.€.€€To€this€end,€theÐ Ô&$"& ÐFourth€Amendment€requires€that€seizure€must€be€based€on€specific,Ð º' #' Ðobjective€facts€indicating€that€society's€legitimate€interests€require€theÐ  (ð#( Ðseizure€of€the€particular€individual,€or€that€the€seizure€must€be€carriedÐ †)Ö$) Ðout€pursuant€to€a€plan€embodying€explicit,€neutral€limitations€on€theÐ l*¼%* Ðconduct€of€individual€officers.€ÐR+¢&+` x` x ÐÐ 8,ˆ', Ð945€S.W.2d€at€107€(quoting€òòBrownóó,€443€U.S.€at€50„51).€Ð ° ÐÌà  àInitially,€this€stop€of€the€defendant€was€not€based€on€an€articulable€and€reasonable€suspicionÐ |Ì Ðthat€he€was€involved€in€criminal€activity.€€òòSeeóóòòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1€(1968).€€Both€the€state€andÐ b² Ðfederal€constitutions€protect€individuals€from€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€€U.S.€Const.Ð H˜ Ðamend.€IV;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€7.€€Ô#†¼OP»XX2lb+#ÔÔ‡X2lX»¼OPÔAny€police€activity€which€involves€a€stop€of€an€automobileÐ . ~ Ðqualifies€as€a€seizure€under€both€the€state€and€federal€€constitutions.€€òòDelaware€v.€Prowseóó,€440€U.S.Ð  d Ð648€(1979);€òòState€v.€Westbrooksóó,€594€S.W.2d€741€(Tenn.€1979).€€Ð ú J Ðà  àÌà  àIn€cases€similar€to€this,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€substituted€a€balancing€test€inÐ Æ   Ðplace€of€the€traditional€probable€cause€or€articulable€and€reasonable€suspicion€of€criminal€activityÐ ¬ ü  Ðstandards€utilized€to€determine€the€reasonableness€of€police€detentions.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrown€v.€Texasóó,€443Ð ’â  ÐU.S.€47€(1979);€òòUnited€States€v.€Martinez„Feurteóó,€428€U.S.€543€(1976);€òòUnited€States€v.€Brignoni„Ð xÈ  ÐPonceóó,€422€U.S.€873€(1975).€€In€determining€the€validity€of€a€detention€in€roadblock€cases,€courtsÐ ^®  Ðmust€balance€the€public€interest€and€the€individual's€right€to€be€free€from€the€arbitrary€interferenceÐ D”  Ðof€law€officers.€€Absent€articulable€suspicion€or€probable€cause,€the€"'seizure€[in€roadblock€cases]Ð *z  Ðmust€be€carried€out€pursuant€to€a€plan€embodying€explicit,€neutral€limitations€on€the€conduct€ofÐ ` Ðindividual€officers.'"€€òòState€v.€Matthew€Manuelóó,€No.€87„96„III,€slip€op.€at€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÐ öF ÐNashville,€Nov.€23,€1988)€(quoting€òòBrownóó,€443€U.S.€at€51).€€In€òòBrownóó,€the€Supreme€Court€held€thatÐ Ü, Ða€routine€driver's€license€checkpoint€served€a€substantial€state€interest€in€regulating€drivers€on€publicÐ Â Ðroads€and€highways.€€Because€there€is€also€a€substantial€state€interest€in€regulating€the€vehicles€€onÐ ¨ø Ðpublic€roads,€a€roadblock€may€be€within€constitutional€guidelines€if€conducted€under€General€OrderÐ ŽÞ ÐNo.€410.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àIn€this€instance,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€state€had€established€that€the€roadblockÐ @ Ðwas€carried€out€in€a€neutral€manner€compliant€with€General€Order€410.€€Nothing€in€the€recordÐ &v Ðsuggests€that€the€troopers€established€the€roadblock€to€specifically€detain€the€defendant€or€any€otherÐ  \ Ðindividual.€€A€supervisory€officer,€Sergeant€Ray,€was€present€at€the€time€of€the€stop.€€There€wasÐ òB Ðproper€documentation€of€the€procedure.€€Ð Ø( ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€David€Arthur€McCarteróó,€No.€03C01„9406„CR„00240€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÐ ¤ô ÐKnoxville,€Mar.€13,€1995),€this€court€upheld€the€conviction€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€aÐ Š Ú Ðdefendant€who€was€stopped€at€a€driver's€license€checkpoint.€€The€authority€was€granted€inÐ p!À  Ðcompliance€with€General€Order€No.€410.€€Later,€in€òòState€v.€David€Lynn€Hagyóó,€No.€03C01„9505„CR„Ð V"¦! Ð00152€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Dec.€5,€1995),€this€court€upheld€a€conviction€for€violationÐ <#Œ" Ðof€a€habitual€traffic€offender€order€as€the€result€of€a€roadblock€conducted€pursuant€to€General€OrderÐ "$r# Ð410.€€In€each€of€those€instances,€this€court€acknowledged€the€significant€interest€of€the€state€inÐ %X $ Ðregulating€the€operators€of€vehicles€on€public€roads.€€Also,€there€was€proof€of€compliance€withÐ î%>!% ÐGeneral€Order€410.€€Because€the€state€has€a€legitimate€interest€in€traffic€enforcement€and€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðroadblock€plan€contained€explicit,€neutral€limitations€on€the€conduct€of€the€officers,€the€stop€in€thisÐ º' #' Ðinstance€did€not€violate€constitutional€protections.€€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌÐ 8,ˆ', Їà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE€Ð –æ ÐÌà  àÌÌ