ÿWPCœ ˜‰™ŒLh´´8»µ´8à’z’y„ýý´”€[MCCNӈɀ¤œô㳬gy S>Ö3.(Êâ#pPC%e¦|¤„gFŽ("|=‰¡ðk:ÚÅ/eûöˆËšEHHÕÜNa?íå)°†]=áMY&l¤Ö >Ë5¦«wÆàëdÖ-e¥àºà¡(†+ŸÜ4‹“p¡«§kèæáGߦzÈÀÅjdþ ‚ÐMFjRÒ–±{»*`4­<Ù³Ð!™*§QtÓCÉ×玀£ÌJ,oqíF‰™¹?fÓùjçlMr˜¬—8[ñPQ^ÆtÞwÝrAÈ–»"*þJÉv—»ÞžðµŽyRÇá€åp-sÖh‹³,‡¿ýƒþ#›: f$Gk)âYçACfVï÷¢Ç/‡þ…‡uìÂ厩z9=ßó¡ˆPI‰[‹u1Jöˆ´‘ô ãk-×fm æÁÅ@©<ƒ‰oÊ ‡ %b ^ h 0ˆt UNü wJ 4N b zq Òë ½ m¿ #ÉÖ UNŸÆíƳÆyÆ?pNu,wwE££££££££££££££££££££££££b¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ 0Y­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­e 0Dkk 0믯¯˜š B22 0¤O D5ó D-( 0KUU AS Æó 0¤¹ 0D] A«¡¡¡¡¡LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 0NN»Ò¢i1Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularóbï. v3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  T]he CHA IDsa]ssumingarguendosuspicionless OdomYearganProuseWestbrooksBrattonFuerteDeptPolicevCurwood WittBledsoeArdenaLidster "Ý ƒRµI$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô©ùò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔExhibit€6€depicts€the€entrance€into€the€housing€authority€development€at€the€intersection€of€East€25òòthóó€Street€andÐ ° ÐWashington€Street.òòóó- ù-6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô [Ý ƒRµI$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô©ùò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBoth€Chattanooga€city€police€and€CHA€officers€had€jurisdiction€in€Poss€Homes.€€However,€all€officers€on€theÐ ° Ðproperty€worked€under€the€authority€of€Officer€Brown€and€in€fulfillment€of€the€CHA€charter.€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(|G2µI$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô©ùò»»Ô ŽÝ ƒRµI$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô©ùò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔContrary€to€the€testimony€of€Officer€Brown,€the€Defendantððs€grandmother€and€former€member€of€the€CHAÐ ° ÐBoard,€Erma€Joyce,€testified€that,€in€August€of€2002,€the€identification€badges€had€not€yet€been€issued€to€Poss€HomesÐ tÄ Ðresidents. d(|3¿]$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿]$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼»»»ÔÑ8€X1XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î ÔÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼»îî Ô #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€17,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX1X»¼ÔÌò òÔ#†¼»XXX1#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JERRY€W.€HAYESòòóóÔ‡XX1X»¼Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€244043€€€€€€€Rebecca€Stern,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„02338„CCA„R9„CD€„€Filed€November€9,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ XX1XXXX1ÔThe€State€appeals€from€an€order€of€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€suppressing€evidence€fromÐ xÈ  Ða€motorist€stop€on€public€housing€authority€property.€€Following€the€stop€at€the€street€entrance€intoÐ d´ Ðthe€public€housing€development,€the€officer€observed€two€quart€containers€of€beer€in€the€vehicleÐ P  Ðdriven€by€Defendant,€Jerry€W.€Hayes.€€A€check€of€Hayesðð€driverððs€license€revealed€that€the€licenseÐ <Œ Ðhad€been€suspended.€€Hayes€was€indicted€for€driving€on€a€suspended€license€and€being€a€minor€inÐ (x Ðpossession€of€alcohol.€€The€stated€purpose€of€the€housing€authorityððs€checkpoint€was€to€ensure€theÐ d Ðsafety€of€its€residents€by€excluding€trespassers€and€others€without€legitimate€purposes€seeking€entryÐ P Ðinto€the€housing€development.€€The€trial€court€found€the€stop€constituted€an€unreasonable€seizure€andÐ ì< Ðwas€thus€unconstitutional.€€Pursuant€to€Rule€9€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€theÐ Ø( ÐState€seeks€review€of€this€ruling.€€After€review,€we€conclude€that€the€stop€was€reasonable;€therefore,Ð Ä Ðno€Fourth€Amendment€violation€resulted.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€suppression€ofÐ ° Ðthe€evidence€and€remand€for€further€proceedings.Ô#†XX1XX XX1·#ÔÔ#†¼»XXX1‹#ÔÔ‡XX1X»¼ÔÐ œì ÐÓ«ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversed€and€Remandedó óÐ tÄ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼»àXX1x #ÔÔ‡XX1X.¼ÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.óó€andÐ L œ ÐòòAlan€E.€Glennóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€John€H.Ð #`" ÐBledsoe,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€William€H.€Cox€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€DavidÐ ü#L# ÐDenny,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð è$8 $ ÐÔ#†¼»XXX1S #ÔÔ‡XX1X»¼ÔÌArdena€J.€Garth,€District€Public€Defender;€Steven€D.€Brown€(at€trial)€and€Donna€Robinson€MillerÐ À&"& Ð(on€appeal),€Assistant€District€Public€Defenders,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€Jerry€W.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐHayes.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌÌÌÌÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_ÔÔ#†¼»XXX1 #ÔÔ‡XX1X»¼ÔÓ$ Óà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼»XXX1#ÔÔ‡XX1X»¼ÔÐ ° ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ ˆØ ÐòòóóÔ#†¼»XXX1v#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XX1X»¼ÔÌà  àThe€Chattanooga€Housing€Authority€(CHA),€a€governmental€entity,€operates€Poss€Homes,Ð `° Ðwhich€provides€housing€for€low„income€families.€€On€August€13,€2002,€Officer€Ralph€Brown,€anÐ L œ Ðinvestigator€with€CHA,€was€conducting€an€identification€checkpoint€at€the€entrance€to€the€PossÐ 8 ˆ ÐHomes€development.׃N×Ý ƒP#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€checkpoint€is€located€on€Washington€Street€which€is€inside€the€publicÐ $ t Ðhousing€development.€€The€City€of€Chattanooga€had€"ceded"€this€portion€of€Washington€Street€toÐ  ` ÐCHA.€€At€approximately€6:30€p.m.,€the€Defendant€approached€the€public€housing€area€on€25òòthóó€streetÐ ü L  Ðand€turned€left€into€the€Washington€Street€entrance.€€Twenty„fifth€street€ends€at€the€WashingtonÐ è 8  ÐStreet€entrance.׃×Ý ƒP#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Once€on€Washington€Street,€Officer€Brown€stopped€the€Defendant,€who€was€aloneÐ Ô$  Ðin€his€vehicle.€€According€to€Brown,€the€following€events€then€transpired:€Ð À  ÐÌà8  àI€told€the€[Defendant]€what€we€were€doing€and€he€was€asking€questions€about€whyÐ ˜è  Ðare€you€stopping€me.€€I€said,€basically,€we€are€doing€an€ID€check€and€we€are€checkingÐ „Ô  Ðto€see€if€people€live€here.€€He€showed€me€his€driving€license.€€I€looked€in€the€vehicleÐ pÀ Ðand€there€was€beer€in€the€front€passengerððs€side€of€the€vehicle€and€he€looked€underÐ \¬ Ðtwenty„one€years€of€age.€€I€looked€at€his€driving€license.€€We€ran€his€driving€licenseÐ H˜ Ðthrough€the€computer€and€it€came€back€suspended€for€nonpayment€of€fines.Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà0 ` à.€.€.Ð \` (#` (# ÐÌà8  àà ` à.€.€.€[T]he€beer€was€still€in€the€cans,€it€wasnððt€open.€€I€made€him€pull€over€toÐ ä4 Ðthe€side€of€the€road,€ran€him€through€the€computer.€€I€wrote€him€a€citation.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` à.€.€.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà ` à.€.€.€€I€told€him€to€park€his€vehicle€over€there€and€call€somebody.€€He€says€heÐ €Ð Ðwas€visiting€some€friends€there,€he€wasnððt€specific€about€what€friends€he€said.€€HeÐ l¼ Ðsaid€his€uncle€bought€the€beer€and€he€told€me€that.€€ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€Defendant€was€indicted€for€driving€on€a€suspended€license€and€being€a€minor€in€possession€ofÐ 0"€  Ðalcohol.€€The€Appellant€moved€to€suppress€the€evidence,€arguing€that€the€vehicle€checkpoint€wasÐ #l! Ðunconstitutional.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€Officer€Brown€testified€that€the€CHA€conducted€vehicleÐ à%0!$ Ðcheckpoints€at€Poss€Homes€two€or€three€times€per€week€ð ðusually€late€afternoon.ðð€€He€stopped€everyÐ Ì&"% Ðvehicle€which€attempted€to€enter€the€development€and,€sometimes,€pedestrians.€€Brown€stated€thatÐ ° Ðdrivers€do€not€use€Washington€Street€as€a€ð ðthoroughfareðð€and,€thus,€the€vehicle€checkpoint€did€notÐ œì Ðaffect€drivers€or€pedestrians€other€than€visitors€to€the€development.€€However,€the€Washington€StreetÐ ˆØ Ðentrance€was€not€the€only€entrance€into€the€development.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àBrownððs€testimony€established€that€it€would€ð ðhave€been€readily€apparent€to€any€motorist€thatÐ L œ Ðthey€were€entering€into€a€federally€subsidized€housing€area[.]ðð€€According€to€Brown,€an€individualÐ 8 ˆ Ðapproaching€the€development€was€free€to€leave€the€area€and€avoid€the€checkpoint,€a€situation€whichÐ $ t Ðhad€occurred€on€one€prior€occasion.€€Nonetheless,€no€signs€announced€or€explained€the€presence€ofÐ  ` Ðthe€checkpoint.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àBrown€testified€that,€on€the€day€in€question,€the€Defendant€was€ð ðlike€the€third€car€we€hadÐ Ô$  Ðstopped€that€day.ðð€€According€to€Brown,€the€Defendant€was€free€to€leave€until€he€noticed€the€beerÐ À  Ðinside€the€vehicle.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àOfficer€Brown€stated€that€the€purpose€of€the€checkpoint€was€ð ðto€make€sure€that€people€livedÐ „Ô  Ðthere€that€were€coming€in€there€and€not€people€that€were€coming€in€there€that€were€causing€problemsÐ pÀ Ðwith€selling€drugs,€drunkenness€and€various€types€of€crimes.€€People€were€allowed€to€come€in€thereÐ \¬ Ðto€visit€relatives[.]ðð€€Officer€Brown€testified€that€residents€of€Poss€Homes€pay€a€reduced€rental€rate.€Ð H˜ ÐAs€a€condition€of€being€permitted€to€live€in€the€development,€residents€are€not€allowed€to€ð ðhaveÐ 4„ Ðindividuals€in€there€with€alcohol€or€drugs€or€anyone€causing€problems[.]ðð€€Moreover,€residents€signÐ  p Ða€contract€that€they€will€not€permit€individuals€into€the€housing€development€who€have€beenÐ  \ Ðconvicted€of€certain€crimes.€€Brown€also€stated€that€special€identification€badges€had€been€made€forÐ øH Ðthe€residents€of€the€development.׃U×Ý ƒP#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рä4 ÐÌ€à  àHe€testified€that€the€checkpoints€were€established€by€Jeff€Hazelwood,€the€CHA€police€chief.€Ð ¼  ÐHe€also€testified€as€to€the€ð ðPosition€Descriptionðð€for€his€job,€which€was,€ð ðUnder€the€generalÐ ¨ø Ðsupervision€of€the€Protective€Services€Manager,€performs€development€and€planning€programs€toÐ ”ä Ðconduct€security€programs.€€The€assigned€manager€will€promote€projects,€programs,€and€processesÐ €Ð Ðthat€enhance€the€safety€and€security€of€all€Chattanooga€Housing€Authority€residents,€staff,€andÐ l¼ Ðproperties.ðð€€The€State€admitted€into€evidence€a€memorandum€from€Hazelwood€to€all€investigators.€Ð X ¨ ÐThe€memorandum€provided,€ð ðWhen€making€your€daily€assignment€rosters,€please€remember€that€weÐ D!” Ðcan€only€do€ID€checkpoints€in€developments€where€we€own€the€streets.€€At€this€time€that€is€only€PossÐ 0"€  ÐHomes€and€College€Hill€Courts.€€You€have€no€legal€standing€to€do€a€check€point€on€a€publicÐ #l! Ðroadway.ðð€€Brown€asserted€that€the€CHA€had€a€neutral€and€explicit€plan€for€executing€theseÐ $X" Ðcheckpoint€stops.€€Regarding€the€established€procedure€for€conducting€the€checkpoint,€BrownÐ ô$D # Ðtestified:Ð à%0!$ Ðâ âÐ Ì&"% Ðà8  àà ` àWhat€I€do,€Iððd€wait€till€they€got€on€the€housing€property.€€The€first€thing€I€doÐ ° Ðâ âis€what€I€call€a€greeting,€ð ðHow€are€you€doing.€€Good€afternoon.ðð€€Then€after€that€IððdÐ œì Ðsay,€ð ðIððm€Ralph€Brown,€criminal€investigator€for€Chattanooga€Housing€Authority.ðð€Ð ˆØ ÐThen€I€would€tell€them€the€reason€why€I€stopped€them,€Iððm€checking€IDs,€see€if€youÐ tÄ Ðlive€here€in€this€residence€„€„€I€mean€this€housing€development.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àAfter€that€Iððd€ask€for€some€form€of€identification,€a€driving€license,€and€afterÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€point€sometimes€Iððd€ask€for€registration€and€insurance,€and€after€that€I€wouldÐ $ t Ðmake€a€final€decision€on€what€I€was€going€to€do.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€checkpoint€violated€the€Fourth€Amendment€and€suppressed€theÐ è 8  Ðevidence,€concluding€that:€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  à[a]ssuming€òòarguendoóó€that€the€exclusion€of€trespassers€was€a€sufficiently€compellingÐ ¬ü  Ðstate€interest€to€justify€suspicionless€seizures,€there€is€no€evidence€of€the€degree€toÐ ˜è  Ðwhich€the€random€entry€checkpoint€at€Poss€Homes,€which€.€.€.€was€at€or€near€only€oneÐ „Ô  Ðof€more€than€one€entrance€to€the€development,€advanced€the€interest.€€If€theÐ pÀ Ðcheckpoint€was€not€efficacious,€however,€then€the€public€interest€in€it€did€notÐ \¬ Ðoutweigh€even€minimal€interference€with€individual€liberty.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌAdditionally,€the€trial€court€continued,€ð ðthe€checkpoint€plan€would€violate€Article€I,€ðð€7€for€anotherÐ  p Ðreason,€òòvizóó:€the€lack€of€limitations€on€the€discretion€of€officers€in€the€field.ðð€€It€is€from€this€ruling€thatÐ  \ Ðthe€State€now€appeals.Ð øH ÐÌò òÓ  ÓANALYSIS€ó óÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€reviewing€a€denial€of€a€motion€to€suppress,€this€court€looks€to€the€facts€adduced€at€theÐ ¨ø Ðsuppression€hearing€which€are€most€favorable€to€the€prevailing€party.€€òòState€v.€Danielóó,€12€S.W.3dÐ ”ä Ð420,€423€(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996)).€€In€considering€theÐ €Ð Ðevidence€presented€at€the€hearing,€this€court€extends€great€deference€to€the€fact„finding€of€theÐ l¼ Ðsuppression€hearing€judge€with€respect€to€weighing€credibility,€determining€facts,€and€resolvingÐ X ¨ Ðconflicts€in€the€evidence.€€òòId.;€see€also€State€v.€Walton,óó€41€S.W.3d€75,€81€(Tenn.€2001).€€Indeed,Ð D!” Ðthese€findings€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€òò€Danielóó,€12€S.W.3d€atÐ 0"€  Ð423.€€Although€deference€is€given€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact,€this€court€conducts€its€ownÐ #l! Ðappraisal€of€the€constitutional€questions€presented€by€reviewing€the€law€and€applying€it€to€theÐ $X" Ðspecific€facts€of€the€particular€case.€€òòState€v.€Keithóó,€978€S.W.2d€861,€864€(Tenn.€1998)€(citing€òòStateÐ ô$D # Ðv.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629€(Tenn.€1997)).Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àBoth€the€state€and€federal€constitutions€protect€individuals€from€unreasonable€searches€andÐ ¸'#& Ðseizures.€€òòU.S.€Constóó.€amend.€IV;€òòTenn.€Constóó.€art.€I,€ðð€7.€€Any€police€activity€which€involves€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðstop€of€an€automobile€qualifies€as€a€seizure€under€both€the€state€and€federal€constitutions.òò€€DelawareÐ )à$( Ðv.€Prouseóó,€440€U.S.€648,€653,€99€S.€Ct.€1391,€1396€(1979);€òòState€v.€Westbrooksóó,€594€S.W.2d€741,Ð |*Ì%) Ð743€(Tenn.€1979).€€The€ultimate€question€is€whether€the€stop€was€reasonable.€€In€judging€theÐ h+¸&* Ðreasonableness€of€the€stop,€thus€its€constitutionality,€we€are€required€to€examine:€€a)€the€gravity€ofÐ ° Ðthe€public€concerns€served€by€the€seizure;€b)€the€degree€to€which€the€seizure€advances€the€publicÐ œì Ðinterest;€and€c)€the€severity€of€the€interference€with€individual€liberty.€€òòState€v.€Downeyóó,€945€S.W.2dÐ ˆØ Ð102,€107€(Tenn.€1997)€(quoting€òòBrown€v.€Texasóó,€443€U.S.€47,€50„51,€99€S.€Ct.€2637,€2640€(1979)).€Ð tÄ Ðà  àÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€our€supreme€court€addressed€the€constitutionality€of€driversðð€licenseÐ L œ Ðroadblocks€under€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€55€S.W.3d€515,Ð 8 ˆ Ð519€(Tenn.€2001).€€The€court€explained€that€the€balancing€test€used€in€òòDowneyóó€is€to€be€applied€notÐ $ t Ðjust€to€sobriety€checkpoints,€but€in€ð ðall€cases€involving€constitutional€challenges€to€roadblocks€orÐ  ` Ðcheckpoints€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ðð€òòId.óó€at€524.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThis€case€presents€an€issue€of€first€impression€in€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€Moreover,€weÐ Ô$  Ðwould€observe€that€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€not€ruled€directly€upon€area€entryÐ À  Ðcheckpoints,€which€is€the€subject€of€this€appeal.€€We€find€the€rationale€of€òòMaxwell€v.€City€of€NewÐ ¬ü  ÐYorkóó,€102€F.3d€664€(2nd€Cir.€1996),€òòcert.€denied€sub€nom.€Maxwell€v.€Brattonóó,€552€U.S.€813€(1997),Ð ˜è  Ðpersuasive.€€In€òòMaxwellóó,€the€Second€Circuit€upheld€the€operation€of€a€checkpoint€established€for€carsÐ „Ô  Ðentering€a€high„crime€area€of€the€Bronx€following€a€series€of€drive„by€shootings.€€Like€the€court€inÐ pÀ ÐòòMaxwellóó,€we€conclude€that€the€checkpoint€at€issue€here€satisfies€the€three„prong€test€of€òòBrownóó.€€òòSeeÐ \¬ Ðalso€In€re€Hayden€Jerome€Jackson€v.€Stateóó,€No.€1021472€(Ala.€Feb.€20,€2004).€€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àFirst,€the€checkpoints€in€question€served€an€important€public€concern.€€In€òòCity€of€IndianapolisÐ  p Ðv.€Edmondóó,€the€Supreme€Court€concluded€that€a€checkpoint€is€unlawful€if€its€ð ðprimary€purposeððÐ  \ Ðcannot€be€distinguished€from€the€ð ðgeneral€interest€in€crime€control.ðð€€òòCity€of€Indianapolis€v.€Edmondóó,Ð øH Ð531€U.S.€32,€48,€121€S.€Ct.€447,€458€(2000).€€The€conceded€purpose€of€the€Indianapolis€roadblockÐ ä4 Ðwas€the€interdiction€of€narcotics.€€In€this€case,€the€primary€purpose€of€the€checkpoint€was€that€ofÐ Ð  Ðensuring€the€security€of€the€residents€in€the€housing€development.€€Notwithstanding€the€decision€inÐ ¼  ÐòòEdmondóó,€òòóóthe€Courtòòóó€made€clear:€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àOur€holding€.€.€.€does€not€affect€the€validity€of€border€searches€or€searches€at€placesÐ €Ð Ðlike€airports€and€government€buildings,€where€the€need€for€such€measures€to€ensureÐ l¼ Ðpublic€safety€can€be€particularly€acute.€€Nor€does€our€opinion€speak€to€otherÐ X ¨ Ðintrusions€aimed€primarily€at€purposes€beyond€the€general€interest€in€crime€control.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€47„48,€457.€€Moreover,€in€the€recent€decision€ofòò€Illinois€v.€Listeróó,€€the€United€States€SupremeÐ #l! ÐCourt€held€that€a€law€enforcement€checkpoint€on€a€public€highway€for€purposes€of€gatheringÐ $X" Ðinformation€in€a€criminal€investigation€was€not€unconstitutional.€€òòIllinois€v.€Lidsteróó,€540€U.S.€419,Ð ô$D # Ð__,€124€€S.€Ct.€885,€891€(2004).€€ð ðLike€certain€other€forms€of€police€activity,€say€crowd€control€orÐ à%0!$ Ðpublic€safety,€an€information„seeking€stop€is€not€the€kind€of€event€that€involves€suspicion,€or€lackÐ Ì&"% Ðof€suspicion,€of€the€relevant€individual.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€__,€889.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€property€in€question€is€government„owned€and€dedicated€for€residential€use€by€eligibleÐ )à$( Ðlow€income€families.€€The€housing€authorityððs€mission€is€to€provide€safe€housing€for€its€residents.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐAs€part€of€its€statutory€mandate,€CHA€is€required€to€provide€its€tenants€with€decent,€safe,€andÐ h+¸&* Ðsanitary€places€to€live.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„20„102€(1999).€€A€condition€of€being€permittedÐ ° Ðto€live€in€the€development€requires€residents€to€sign€a€contract€that€they€will€not€have€individualsÐ œì Ðconvicted€of€certain€crimes€in€the€housing€area.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àSecond,€the€purpose€of€these€entry€checkpoints€is€to€provide€a€measure€of€security€for€thoseÐ `° Ðwho€live€within€the€development.€€The€identification€checkpoint€is€an€efficient€means€of€determiningÐ L œ Ðthat€persons€entering€the€housing€development€are€residents€or€visitors€with€a€legitimate€business€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðsocial€reason€for€being€there.€€Thus,€the€checkpoints€contributed€ð ðin€a€meaningful€way€to€achievingÐ $ t Ðthe€sufficiently€compelling€state€interest.ðð€€òòHicksóó,€55€S.W.3d€at€531.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThird,€the€intended€level€of€intrusion€to€motorists€or€pedestrians€is€minimal.€€Regarding€theÐ è 8  Ðseverity€of€the€interference€with€personal€liberty€and€privacy,€our€supreme€court€has€held€ð ðaÐ Ô$  Ðroadblock€cannot€be€deemed€constitutionally€reasonable€unless€ððit€is€established€and€operated€inÐ À  Ðaccordance€with€predetermined€operational€guidelines€and€supervisory€authority€that€minimize€theÐ ¬ü  Ðrisk€of€arbitrary€intrusion€on€individuals€and€limit€the€discretion€of€law€enforcement€officers€at€theÐ ˜è  Ðscene.ðððð€òòId.€óóat€533€(quoting€òòDowneyóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€104.)€€The€decision€in€òòDowney€óóenumeratedÐ „Ô  Ðseveral€characteristics€of€a€roadblock€that€minimize€the€risk€of€arbitrary€intrusion€under€Article€I,Ð pÀ Ðsection€7,€including:€(1)€stopping€all€cars€traveling€in€both€directions,€unless€congested€trafficÐ \¬ Ðrequires€permitting€motorists€to€pass€through;€(2)€taking€adequate€safety€precautions,€such€asÐ H˜ Ðwarning€approaching€motorists€of€the€roadblock€and€stopping€cars€only€in€a€safe€and€visible€area;Ð 4„ Ð(3)€conducting€the€roadblock€with€uniformed€officers€and€marked€patrol€cars€with€flashingÐ  p Ðemergency€lights;€and€(4)€providing€advanced€publicity€of€the€roadblock€to€the€public€at€large,Ð  \ Ðseparate€from,€and€in€addition€to,€any€notice€warnings€given€to€approaching€motorists.€òò€Idóó.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àÔ4‚fpuÔÔ5  ÔÝ‚6ÿÝòòÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ6ãTÔÝ‚†ÍOÿÿÿÿattaÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7pu÷TÔNo€vehicle€was€to€be€stopped€or€its€operation€questioned€unless€entry€into€the€housing€areaÐ Ð  Ðwas€desired.€€If€the€motorist€or€pedestrian€did€not€wish€to€pass€through€the€checkpoint,€then€thatÐ ¼  Ðperson€was€free€to€turn€around€and€leave.€€For€those€seeking€entry,€the€stop€was€meant€to€be€brief€andÐ ¨ø Ðwas€aimed€solely€at€ascertaining€the€personððs€connection€to€the€neighborhood.€€Officer€Brown,€aÐ ”ä Ðuniformed€CHA€officer,€requested€the€Defendant€€ð ðpull€over€to€the€side€of€the€roadðð€and€ð ðtold€himÐ €Ð Ðto€park€his€vehicleðð€out€of€the€way€of€oncoming€traffic.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€òòDowneyóó,€our€supreme€court€observed€ð ðthat€roadblocks€furthered€the€stateððs€interest€notÐ D!” Ðonly€byòò€detecting€óódrunk€drivers€but€also€byòò€deterring€óósuch€behavior,€particularly€when€the€road€blockÐ 0"€  Ðis€accompanied€by€advanced€publicity.ðð€€òòDowneyóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€109.€€Thus€in€large€part,€the€publicÐ #l! Ðpurpose€for€publicity€in€a€sobriety€roadblock€is€to€deter€criminal€activity.€€As€evidenced€by€theÐ $X" Ðindividualððs€choice€not€to€pass€through€the€checkpoint,€the€purpose€of€the€subject€identificationÐ ô$D # Ðcheckpoint€is€unrelated€to€detecting€or€deterring€criminal€behavior.€€Accordingly,€the€efficacy€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðpublic€notice€would€serve€no€purpose€nor€advance€the€public€interest€in€protecting€residents€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðhousing€area.€€€€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€òòUnited€States€v.€Martinez„Fuerteóó,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€checkpoint€aimed€atÐ )à$( Ðinterdicting€the€flow€of€illegal€aliens€which€involved€ð ðonly€a€brief€detention€of€travelers€during€whichÐ |*Ì%) Ðall€that€[was]€required€of€the€vehicleððs€occupants€[was]€a€response€to€a€brief€question€or€two€andÐ h+¸&* Ðpossibly€the€production€of€a€document€evidencing€a€right€to€be€in€the€United€Statesðð€was€notÐ ° Ðsufficiently€intrusive€so€as€to€violate€the€Fourth€Amendment.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Martinez„Fuerteóó,€428Ð œì ÐU.S.€543,€558,€96€S.€Ct.€3074,€3083€(1976)€(quotation€omitted).€€Here,€as€in€òòMartinez„Fuerteóó,€theÐ ˆØ Ðrequest€for€evidence€of€a€legitimate€reason€to€enter€the€housing€area€was€not€significantly€intrusive.€Ð tÄ ÐMoreover,€because€the€plan€here€was€to€stop€all€motorists€seeking€entry,€there€was€little€concern€thatÐ `° Ðthe€stop€would€generate€ð ðfear€and€surprise.ðð€€òòMichigan€Depððt€of€State€Police€v.€Sitzóó,€496€U.S.€444,Ð L œ Ð452„53,€110€S.€Ct.€2481,€2486€(1990);€òòMartinez„Fuerteóó,€428€U.S.€at€558,€96€S.€Ct.€at€3083€(whereÐ 8 ˆ Ðmotorist€can€see€that€other€vehicles€are€being€stopped€and€can€see€visible€signs€of€the€officersððÐ $ t Ðauthority,€there€is€less€likelihood€of€fright€or€annoyance).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àHowever,€the€most€important€attribute€of€a€reasonable€roadblock€is€the€presence€of€genuineÐ è 8  Ðlimitations€upon€the€discretion€of€the€officers€in€the€field.€€òòHicksóó,€55€S.W.3d€at€533.€€Two€facts€areÐ Ô$  Ðcritical€to€finding€that€the€officersðð€discretion€on€the€scene€was€properly€limited:€(1)€the€decision€toÐ À  Ðset€up€the€roadblock€in€the€first€instance€cannot€have€been€made€by€the€officer€or€officers€actuallyÐ ¬ü  Ðestablishing€the€checkpoint,€and€(2)€the€officers€on€the€scene€cannot€decide€for€themselves€theÐ ˜è  Ðprocedures€to€be€used€in€operating€the€roadblock.€€òòId.óó€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àWe€emphasize€the€discretion€afforded€went€only€to€the€decision€to€permit€or€deny€vehicularÐ \¬ Ðentry€into€the€area,€not€to€the€detention€of€persons€in€the€vehicles.€€òòMaxwellóó,€102€F.3d€at€668.€€OfficerÐ H˜ ÐBrown€testified€that€the€checkpoints€were€mandated€by€the€CHA€police€chief.€€Police€roadblocksÐ 4„ Ðneed€not€be€based€on€reasonable€suspicion€of€particular€drivers,€òòsee€Martinez„Fuerteóó,€428€U.S.€atÐ  p Ð560„61,€96€S.€Ct.€at€3084,€but€the€detention€of€particular€motorists€beyond€the€initial€stop€ð ðmayÐ  \ Ðrequire€satisfaction€of€an€individualized€suspicion€standard.ðð€€òòSitzóó,€496€U.S.€at€451,€110€S.€Ct.€atÐ øH Ð2485;€òòsee€also€Martinez„Fuerteóó,€428€U.S.€at€566„67,€96€S.€Ct.€at€3084€(ð ðThe€principal€protection€ofÐ ä4 ÐFourth€Amendment€rights€at€checkpoints€lies€in€appropriate€limitations€on€the€scope€of€the€stop.ðð)€Ð Ð  ÐThus,€once€the€initial€stop€has€been€conducted,€the€decision€to€further€detain€a€motorist€must€beÐ ¼  Ðbased€on€particularized€reasonable€suspicion.€€òòSee€generally€Terry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€88€S.€Ct.Ð ¨ø Ð1868€(1968).€Ð ”ä ÐÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONó óÐ l¼ ÐÌÓ3iÓà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€the€checkpoint€stop€was€reasonable€under€FourthÐ D!” ÐAmendment€principles€and€thus€constitutional.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€order€of€the€HamiltonÐ 0"€  ÐCounty€Criminal€Court€granting€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€and€remand€for€furtherÐ #l! Ðproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ð $X" ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE