ÿWPC ‚v:ðøZ|²PY7£¼‰Dk$WëÁªGP|°PÚ)ñ 0¨c·ô5€I¡Êœû¼ –}ŸƒÙ›@?ÌéAYI†€ˆÙ­çÙŸ˜¡¶Âg)6¸à=_7ûúåtœ0|:rž›¸ —ü”Ó³°#óTK¶¡ˆ>˜6Ø Ê™™…¸à~48›¿5Xú{ÐY(ʧÞu6ü‚a¤ë.B=Î{ rQ½*SA‚™y”¤Ï.Æü—™ï~>moë0¿»ÒØj,£T-ú.ÈŽvÌô¼eˆyÀk%ÏŽ†fŠÍçî'öØ" !n¬s¿w7,U~$!B²’ë%;.'ûhó¢Œy–§"â%vÁ«®ñ‚zHÄVtÂdu2÷÷~„*ö¹$àºn•iêÆ9P·þõRùC‹€ãv—NÖ|TZ¹Ó჎U‚íM`—Ù˜SaEg!?Ö$eÄÓ‘¾"4\Ššˆiå—æ±‚ál`œ•M06{*ù}ìX[\ŽÄ//mÞti8E§ Ž Ðnot€give€the€officer€probable€cause€to€arrest€the€defendant€for€DUI,€it€was€enough€to€ð ðestablish€theÐ ' w Ðright€of€the€officer€to€òòbriefly€detainóó€the€defendant€at€the€scene€and€administer€field€sobriety€tests€orÐ  ` Ðotherwise€ascertain€defendantððs€state€of€sobriety.ðð€€òòState€v.€Jashua€Shannon€Sidesóó,€No.€E2000„Ð ù I Ð01422„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€364,€*11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€MayÐ â 2  Ð16,€2001)€(citing€òòState€v.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€633€(Tenn.€1997)).€€The€defendantððs€argumentÐ Ë   Ðon€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ´  ÐÌà  àò òB.€€General€Order€410„1€is€unconstitutional€due€to€paragraph€III€C€5ó óÐ †Ö  Ðà  àÌà  àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€General€Order€410„1,€establishing€the€guidelines€forÐ Y©  Ðsobriety€checkpoints,€is€unconstitutional€because€of€paragraph€III€C€5,€which€states:€ð ðOnly€uponÐ B’ Ðobserving€a€noticeable€sign€of€possible€intoxication€or€other€offense€will€further€inquiry€beÐ +{ Ðwarranted.ðð€€In€developing€the€constitutional€guidelines€for€roadblocks€in€Tennessee,€our€supremeÐ d Ðcourt€relied€on€òòMichigan€v.€Sitzóó,€496€U.S.€444€(1990).€€òòSeeóó€òòDowneyóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€107„10.€€In€òòSitzóó,Ð ýM Ðall€vehicles€were€stopped€and€the€drivers€were€checked€for€signs€of€intoxication.€€òòSitzóó,€496€U.S.€atÐ æ6 Ð447.€€If€the€officer€detected€possible€intoxication,€the€vehicle€was€pulled€into€a€pre„determinedÐ Ï Ðlocation€for€further€inquiry.€€òòId.óó€€The€facts€in€this€case€are€almost€identical€to€òòSitzóó.€€Paragraph€III€CÐ ¸ Ð5€of€the€General€Order€is€not€unconstitutional€in€allowing€officers€to€briefly€detain€motorists€whoÐ ¡ñ Ðexhibit€signs€of€possible€intoxication.€€The€defendantððs€argument€on€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ŠÚ ÐÌà  àò òC.€€Police€did€not€follow€guidelinesó óÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€sobriety€checkpoint€was€illegal€because€it€did€notÐ / Ðsubstantially€comply€with€the€Department€of€Safety€guidelines.€€The€procedures€for€conductingÐ h Ðsobriety€checkpoints€are€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Department€of€Safety€General€Order€410„1.€Ð  Q ÐSpecifically,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€roadblock€did€not€comply€with€paragraph€III€A€1€andÐ ê : Ðparagraph€III€A€2€of€General€Order€410„1.Ð Ó!#  ÐÌà  àà ` àò ò1.€€Roadblock€site€not€established€based€on€knowledge€Ð ¥#õ" Ðó óÌà  àGeneral€Order€410„1€paragraph€A€1€provides:€€ð ðIndividual€site€selections€will€be€based€onÐ x%È $ Ðthe€knowledge€of€alcohol„related€crashes€and€the€knowledge€of€DUI€arrests€in€a€particular€area.€Ð a&±!% ÐDocumentation€of€site€selections€will€be€maintained€on€file€by€the€District/Division€Captain.ðð€€TheÐ J'š"& Ðdefendant€contends€that€the€State€provided€no€proof€or€testimony€regarding€this€issue.€€Therefore,Ð 3(ƒ#' Ðthe€roadblock€was€illegal.Ð )l$( Ðà  àÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€list€of€pre„approved€sites€showed€that€some€thoughtfulness€andÐ î*>&* Ðthoroughness€went€into€selecting€the€sites.€€The€court€found€that€the€fact€that€this€site€was€on€the€pre„Ð ×+''+ Ðapproved€list€showed€that€they€most€likely€reviewed€the€appropriate€data€in€selecting€the€site.€€TheÐ ° Ðinference€drawn€by€the€trial€court€is€reasonable.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€ð ðthat€theÐ ™é Ðuse€of€a€sobriety€roadblock,€although€a€seizure,€can€be€a€reasonable€seizure€under€the€TennesseeÐ ‚Ò ÐConstitution,€provided€it€is€established€and€operated€in€accordance€with€predetermined€operationalÐ k» Ðguidelines€and€supervisory€authority€that€minimizes€the€risk€of€arbitrary€intrusion€on€individuals€andÐ T¤ Ðlimit€the€discretion€of€law€enforcement€officers€at€the€scene.ðð€€òòState€v.€Downeyóó,€945€S.W.2d€102,Ð =  Ð104€(Tenn.€1997).€€At€the€suppression€hearing,€the€State€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€seizureÐ & v Ðwas€reasonable.€€òòState€v.€Crossóó,€700€S.W.2d€576€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€It€appears€from€theÐ  _ Ðrecord€that€the€intent€behind€this€section€of€the€guidelines€was€complied€with.€€This€section€of€theÐ ø H Ðguidelines€is€obviously€concerned€with€constitutional€limits€on€the€ð ðunfettered€discretion€of€officersÐ á 1  Ðin€the€fieldðð€in€conducting€roadblocks.€€òòSeeóó€òòDowneyóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€104€(quoting€òòBrown€v.€Texasóó,Ð Ê   Ð443€U.S.€47,€50„51(1979)).€€Officer€Jennings€testified€that€the€roadblock€site€was€selected€by€hisÐ ³  Ðsuperiors,€the€location€was€on€the€list€of€pre„approved€roadblock€sites,€and€there€were€numerousÐ œì  Ðsenior€officers€present.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€finding€that€the€sobriety€checkpointÐ …Õ  Ðin€this€case€substantially€complied€with€paragraph€III€A€1€of€the€guidelines.Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àò ò2.€€No€adequate€warnings€site€was€aheadó óÐ @ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€roadblock€did€not€substantially€comply€with€paragraphÐ c ÐIII€A€3€of€the€guidelines.€€The€pertinent€section€states:€ð ðThe€location€must€give€motorists€adequateÐ üL Ðprior€warning€that€a€roadblock€is€ahead.ðð€€The€defendant€argues€that€there€were€no€warning€signsÐ å5 Ðvisible€at€the€roadblock€site.€€Trooper€Jennings€testified€that€he€saw€illuminated€signs€at€the€scene,Ð Î Ðbut€he€did€not€actually€see€them€in€place.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€did€not€see€any€signs.€€TheÐ · Ðtrial€court€found€that€since€the€signs€were€present€at€the€scene,€they€were€probably€used.€Ð  ð ÐÌà  àThe€record€before€us€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€on€this€issue.€Ð r ÐEven€if€there€were€no€signs€displayed€at€the€scene,€it€would€not€be€dispositive€of€whether€there€wasÐ [« Ðsubstantial€compliance€with€the€adequate€warnings€requirement.€€While€òòDowneyóó€did€list€adequateÐ D” Ðwarnings€as€one€of€the€factors€in€determining€the€constitutionality€of€a€roadblock,€the€court€went€onÐ -} Ðto€say€that€no€single€factor€is€dispositive€of€the€issue.€€òòDowneyóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€110.€€The€recordÐ f Ðindicates€that€there€was€adequate€warning€to€approaching€motorists€even€without€any€signs.€€TrooperÐ ÿO ÐJennings€testified€that€the€officers€were€wearing€reflective€vests,€orange€cones€were€in€place,€blueÐ è 8 Ðlights€were€flashing,€numerous€marked€police€vehicles€were€on€the€scene,€and€the€location€was€inÐ Ñ!!  Ða€well„lit,€visible€area.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€finding€that€the€roadblock€substantiallyÐ º" ! Ðcomplied€with€the€adequate€warnings€requirement.Ð £#ó" ÐÌà  àAffording€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€legitimate€inferencesÐ u%Å $ Ðthat€may€be€drawn€from€it,€we€hold€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€ruling€of€theÐ ^&®!% Ðtrial€court€denying€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.Ð G'—"& ÐÌò òII.€€Motion€in€Limine€Regarding€Racial€Slur€ó óÐ )i$( ÐÌÔ‡ Xfj XXX‘Ôà  àEvidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€ð ðany€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofÐ ì*<&* Ðconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€beÐ Õ+%'+ Ðwithout€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Once€the€court€concludes€the€evidence€is€relevant,€theÐ ° Ðcourt€should€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€its€prejudicialÐ ™é Ðeffect.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403;€òòState€v.€Jamesóó,€81€S.W.3d€751,€757€(Tenn.€2002).€€A€trial€courtððsÐ ‚Ò Ðdecision€as€to€the€relevance€of€evidence€under€Rule€401€will€be€reversed€only€upon€a€showing€ofÐ k» Ðabuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Powersóó,€101€S.W.3d€383,€395€(Tenn.€2003).Ô#†X‘X X Xfj„Q#ÔÐ T¤ Ðà  àÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€testimony€of€his€use€of€the€word€ð ðniggerðð€in€referring€to€TrooperÐ & v ÐJennings€was€not€relevant€to€his€level€of€intoxication.€€The€State€contends€that€it€was€relevant€toÐ  _ Ðshow€his€level€of€intoxication€in€light€of€his€use€of€such€an€inflammatory€and€derogatory€word€inÐ ø H Ðfront€of€his€passenger€and€the€trooper,€both€of€whom€are€African„American.€€Mr.€McCroskey€andÐ á 1  ÐMr.€Crowder,€friends€of€the€defendant,€both€testified€that€they€had€never€heard€the€defendant€use€anyÐ Ê   Ðracial€slurs.€€The€racial€slur€was€relevant€to€show€the€defendantððs€belligerence€and€that€he€wasÐ ³  Ðimpaired.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€finding€that€testimony€of€his€use€of€the€racialÐ œì  Ðslur€was€relevant€to€show€the€defendantððs€level€of€intoxication.Ð …Õ  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€probative€value€of€the€testimony€concerning€his€use€of€theÐ W§  Ðracial€slur€was€substantially€outweighed€by€unfair€prejudice.€€We€certainly€agree€with€the€defendantÐ @ Ðand€the€trial€court€that€the€racial€slur€used€by€the€defendant€in€referring€to€Trooper€Jennings€isÐ )y Ðinflammatory.€€While€this€Court€deplores€the€defendantððs€use€of€such€a€word,€it€was€the€defendantððsÐ b Ðchoice€to€say€it.€€In€the€context€that€the€racial€slur€was€used,€it€was€clearly€probative€of€theÐ ûK Ðdefendantððs€state€of€mind€at€the€time.€€As€the€State€points€out,€the€defendantððs€passenger€and€TrooperÐ ä4 ÐJennings€are€African„American.€€The€testimony€goes€to€show€that€the€defendant€was€not€in€controlÐ Í Ðof€his€faculties€and€used€poor€judgment,€more€probable€than€not€influenced€by€his€use€of€alcohol.€Ð ¶ ÐWe€hold€that€the€probative€value€of€the€testimony€concerning€the€defendantððs€use€of€a€racial€slur€wasÐ Ÿï Ðnot€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.Ð ˆØ ÐÌÓ  Óò òConclusionÐ Zª ÐÌÓ  Óó óà  àBased€upon€our€analysis,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€denying€the€defendantððsÐ .~ Ðmotion€to€suppress€and€his€motion€in€limine€regarding€the€racial€slur.Ð g ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð $Ý# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE