ÿWPCÐ4 •N^‡haÌ ŠÇ2±?ÞU Ô/Ño6¤j'|~nè³°BiÉNÞD÷utm½z—[L¿¹Š2ÆKA4qâ.’—]7íÒÞ*J ã–KÒ‰ì }…êL•ÛºŠkÏFqŒßÀ³Äyú䲸æ§#hVx¨Üé>J9¨I,þNÙŒZráí s¯˜„õ,‘Ix6óÿ³óWxüAÊSÊÁƒŸí\Ö:ŠÃ*xKN?ÎÛ‘¾®q`Þ¿ü ³ ¦Ðõáê:WYÆËÃ(mqÁÙ”¾!¥xBG5Ã\ÎB<3Ma¼‰ÛM¨gtª8•‚ƒ%±ÀíÁƒx¹ÿ©õ×î ”97–éñèN]è¿6Ðÿýë ét¢Ð ×ãˆÈ}ªô ªT˜›%7!ó!†¨Íš†ŠiLNv«C1Ç+Œb´ffîT{B;Ä}žò‹Ðbìeb<¯ÿÞáØ4@ß-ز™:¦ü†`;_æ-’Êß_]öW`çr!ê$o¹‚¼[±½‹ heb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U+N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz *‘ Æ» Æ ÆGÆ ÓNT 0 DVUNšEè 1uê 0c_ß 1‡¡N( 72*Ñ\U--‚‚ r€!€!€!ò#ò# +´+üÉ-É-É-É-bÅ/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/Å/ 0 ëÍ/Í/Í/Í/ B¸0¸0 0¤Õ0 D3y1 D-¬1 0KÙ1Ù1 AS$2Æw2 0¤=3 0Dá3 A«%4˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»% ’+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*(™¥üšд¥ ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒRsÁ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMcLain€implied€that€he€thought€Trooper€Parsleyððs€initial€yell€might€not€have€been€heard€by€the€defendantÐ ° Ðbecause€his€window€was€rolled€up.€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 wÝ ƒRsÁ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€was€possible€for€a€roadblock€at€that€location€to€be€conducted€by€only€two€officers.€€The€site€was€alsoÐ ° Ðcentrally€located,€making€it€possible€for€the€troopers€to€respond€fairly€quickly€to€emergency€calls€throughout€the€county.€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à ÕÝ ƒRsÁ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€State€did€not€question€Trooper€Parsley€about€what€occurred€following€the€stop.€€At€trial,€however,€heÐ ° Ðtestified€that€after€he€ð ðcalmlyðð€approached€the€defendantððs€van€and€told€him€that€he€could€not€ð ðgo€around€traffic€likeÐ tÄ Ðthat,ðð€the€defendant€answered,€ð ðYou„all€shouldnððt€have€the€damn€road€blocked,ðð€and€said€that€Trooper€Parsley€was€toÐ 8ˆ Ðaddress€him€as€ð ðsir.ðð€€Trooper€Parsley€said€that€he€responded€that€he€did€not€have€to€call€the€defendant€sir,€and€that€heÐ üL Ðneeded€to€see€his€driverððs€license.€€According€to€Trooper€Parsley,€he€asked€three€times€to€see€the€defendantððs€license,Ð À Ðsaying,€ð ðI€need€to€see€your€driverððs€license.€€I€need€to€see€your€driverððs€license.€€I€need€to€see€your€driverððs€license[,]ððÐ „Ô Ðbut€all€three€times€the€defendant€refused,€using€the€curse€words€ð ðdamnðð€and€ð ðÔ_ÔdamnitÔ_Ô.ðð€€Trooper€Parsley€said€that€he€thenÐ H ˜ Ðopened€the€door€to€the€defendantððs€van,€and€told€him€to€step€out€and€show€his€identification.€€Instead€of€complying,€theÐ  \  Ðdefendant€kicked€him€in€the€shin.€€In€response,€Trooper€Parsley€grabbed€the€defendantððs€left€arm€and€pulled.€When€heÐ ° Ðð ðyanked,ðð€the€defendantððs€foot€came€off€the€brake,€and€the€van€started€to€roll.€€Trooper€Parsley€then€sprayed€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendant€in€the€face€with€mace.€€By€that€time,€Trooper€Shearl€had€come€up€behind€Parsley,€and€he€also€sprayed€theÐ 8ˆ Ðdefendant€in€the€face€with€mace.€€He€testified€that€he€and€Trooper€Shearl€ð ðgot€[the€defendant]€outðð€of€the€van,€andÐ üL Ðð ðapproximately€three€feet€from€his€van,€he€was€laid€on€the€concrete.ðð€€Trooper€Parsley€said€that€he€searched€theÐ À Ðdefendantððs€wallet€after€he€had€been€placed€under€arrest€and€found€an€expired€license.€€He€later€ran€the€defendantððsÐ „Ô Ðlicense€number€through€dispatch,€and€learned€that€he€possessed€a€current€license.(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.i) ÇÝ ƒRsÁ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€88€S.€Ct.€1868,€20€L.€Ed.€2d€889€(1968). KÝ ƒRsÁ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€State€asserts€in€its€brief€that€the€defendant€testified€that€ð ðhe€thought€he€had€come€upon€the€scene€of€anÐ ° Ðaccident,€yet€he€went€around€the€scene€at€or€near€the€speed€limit.ðð€€ uÝ ƒRsÁ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTennessee€Department€of€Safety€General€Order€410,€governing€the€operation€and€establishment€of€trafficÐ ° Ðenforcement€roadblocks,€requires€the€presence€of€only€two€officers.€€Sobriety€roadblocks,€by€contrast,€require€six€officers. uÝ ƒRsÁ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€òòHicksóó€opinion€was€released€after€the€briefs€were€filed€in€this€case.€€Pursuant€to€Rule€27(d)€of€the€TennesseeÐ ° ÐRules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€the€defendant€submitted€the€case€as€supplemental€authority€for€his€argument.€ hÝ ƒRsÁ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note,€however,€that€in€a€recent€unpublished€opinion,€another€panel€of€this€court€concluded€that€a€defendantÐ ° Ðwho€accelerated€past€a€trooper€conducting€a€roadblock,€before€finally€halting€in€the€center€of€the€road,€had€been€stoppedÐ tÄ Ðat€the€roadblock.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Joe€W.€Stewardóó,€No.€M1999„01284„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€1246436,€at€*1„2€(Tenn.Ð 8ˆ ÐCrim.€App.€Aug.€18,€2000),€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó€(Tenn.€Oct.€8,€2001). Ý ƒRsÁ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOther€jurisdictions€have€reached€similar€results,€concluding€that€a€motoristððs€obvious€attempts€to€avoid€aÐ ° Ðroadblock€may€provide€the€reasonable€suspicion€sufficient€for€a€brief,€investigatory€stop.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó€òòÔ_ÔSynderÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€538Ð tÄ ÐN.E.2d€961,€965€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1989)€(holding€that€driverððs€attempts€to€avoid€a€roadblock€by€making€a€turn€around€ð ðgivesÐ 8ˆ Ðrise€to€a€reasonable€suspicion€on€the€part€of€a€police€officer€that€the€driver€may€be€committing€a€crimeðð);€òòÔ_ÔStroudÔ_Ô€v.Ð üL ÐCommonwealthóó,€370€S.E.2d€721,€722€(Va.€Ct.€App.€1988)€(concluding€that€driverððs€U„turn€and€reversal€of€directionÐ À Ðwithin€100€to€150€feet€of€roadblock€gave€officer€reasonable€suspicion€for€stop);€òòÔ_ÔTimsÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€760€S.W.2d€78,€79€(Ark.Ð „Ô ÐCt.€App.€1988)€(holding€that€motoristððs€action€in€accelerating€past€roadblock€provided€reasonable€suspicion€for€stop);Ð H ˜ ÐòòÔ_ÔCoffmanÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€759€S.W.2d€573,€575€(Ark.€Ct.€App.€1988)€(stating€that€motoristððs€turn€and€reversal€of€direction€atÐ  \ Ðsight€of€clearly€marked€roadblock€gave€officers€reasonable€suspicion€for€stop);€òòCity€of€Las€Cruces€v.€Ô_ÔBetancourtÔ_Ôóó,€735Ð Ð  ÐP.2d€1161,€1163€(N.M.€Ct.€App.€1987)€(holding€that€motorist€who€proceeded€past€roadblock€at€ð ðhigh€rate€of€speed,ððÐ ” ä  Ðalmost€hitting€two€officers,€provided€reasonable€suspicion€for€officer€to€stop€vehicle).  ªÝ ƒRsÁ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€òòLudwick€v.€Doeóó,€914€S.W.2d€522€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995),€the€Court€of€Appeals€interpreted€the€words€ð ðstreetððÐ ° Ðor€ð ðhighwayðð€to€include€ð ðthe€part€designated€for€vehicular€travel€by€the€public,€any€paved€shoulder,€any€unpavedÐ tÄ Ðshoulder,€and€any€remaining€part€of€the€right€of€way,ðð€concluding€that€this€statute€was€not€violated€by€a€motoristððs€drivingÐ 8ˆ Ðonto€the€paved€shoulder€to€pass€on€the€right€a€vehicle€which€was€stopped,€waiting€to€make€a€left€turn.€€€òòId.óó€at€525. òÝ ƒRsÁ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTrooper€Parsley€testified€that,€as€the€defendant€had€entered€the€right€shoulder,€he€almost€struck€a€vehicleÐ ° Ðparked€on€the€shoulder€and€in€front€of€the€Blazer.€€However,€the€occupants€of€the€Blazer€did€not€observe€the€defendantððsÐ tÄ Ðnearly€striking€this€parked€vehicle,€and€the€trial€court€accredited€their€testimony€in€this€regard.- ù-(|G2sÁ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöýò»»Ô d(|3Çy$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Çy$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼\»»»ÔÑ8€ ‰XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îFÄ\ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼\»îîFÄ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€September€25,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X ‰X»¼\ÔÌò òÔ#†¼\»XX ‰##ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JOSEPH€J.€LEVITT,€JR.òòóóÔ‡X ‰X»¼\Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€66082€€€€€€E.€Ô_ÔShayneÔ_Ô€Sexton,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„03051„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€18,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€drove€up€behind€a€vehicle€which€had€halted€because€of€a€driverððs€license€roadblockÐ xÈ  Ðnear€Knoxville.€€He€then€proceeded€onto€the€right€shoulder€to€get€around€that€vehicle€and€wasÐ d´ Ðstopped€by€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€officer€conducting€the€roadblock.€€What€next€occurred€wasÐ P  Ðhighly€disputed,€but€the€events€culminated€with€the€defendantððs€being€sprayed€with€Freeze,€some€ofÐ <Œ Ðwhich€was€deflected€back€onto€the€officer,€partially€incapacitating€him€also.€€The€defendant€wasÐ (x Ðcharged€with€resisting€arrest,€reckless€driving,€and€failure€to€carry€and€display€a€driverððs€license€onÐ d Ðdemand.€€The€reckless€driving€charge€was€òònolle€prosequióó€and,€following€a€jury€trial,€the€defendantÐ P Ðwas€found€not€guilty€of€resisting€arrest€but€was€convicted€of€the€driverððs€license€charge,€sentencedÐ ì< Ðto€ten€days€confinement,€which€was€suspended,€and€ordered€to€pay€a€$50€fine€and€court€costs.€€HeÐ Ø( Ðtimely€appealed€the€conviction,€arguing€that€the€roadblock€was€unconstitutional.€€Based€upon€ourÐ Ä Ðreview,€we€conclude€that€the€roadblock€was€unconstitutional€and€that€the€officers€lacked€probableÐ ° Ðcause€to€stop€the€defendantððs€vehicle.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€conviction€and€dismiss€theÐ œì Ðcharge.€Ô#†¼\»XX ‰ #ÔÔ‡X ‰X»¼\ÔÐ ˆØ ÐÔ#†¼\»XX ‰Ã #ÔÔ‡X ‰X»¼\ÔÓïÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversed€Ð `° Ðand€Dismissedó óÐ L œ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼\»àX ‰ #ÔÔ‡X ‰X.¼\ÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòThomas€T.Ð $"t! ÐÔ_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð #`" ÐÌJames€A.€H.€Bell,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Joseph€J.€Levitt,€Jr.Ð è$8 $ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Peter€M.€Ô_ÔCoughlanÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð À&"& Ðand€Eric€D.€Christiansen,€District€Attorney€General€Pro€Tem,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÓÚ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼\»XX ‰ #ÔÔ‡X ‰X»¼\ÔÐ „)Ô$) ÐÌÓ  Óà  àFollowing€a€jury€trial,€the€defendant€was€found€not€guilty€of€resisting€arrest€but€guilty€ofÐ \+¬&+ Ðfailure€to€carry€and€display€his€driverððs€license€on€demand,€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ H,˜', ÐSection€55„50„351,€a€Class€C€misdemeanor.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€ten€days€inÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôthe€county€jail,€suspended€upon€payment€of€a€$50€fine€and€all€court€costs.€€Following€the€denial€ofÐ ° Ðhis€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€defendant€filed€a€timely€notice€of€appeal€to€this€court,€raising€twoÐ œì Ðissues,€which€he€states€in€his€brief€as€follows:Ð ˆØ ÐÌÓ*°,XƒXŒ –X°œX*Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI.à Œ àThe€Trial€Court€erred€in€determining€that€the€roadblock€operatedÐ `° Ðby€members€of€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€was€constitutionallyÐ L œ Ðpermissible€and€denying€the€Appellantððs€Motion€to€Suppress€allÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€this€roadblock.Ð$ t` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àII.à Œ àThe€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€prove€beyondÐ ü L  Ða€reasonable€doubt€that€the€Appellant€was€operating€a€motor€vehicleÐ è 8  Ðin€violation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€55„50„351,€requiring€that€an€individual€carryÐ Ô$  Ða€valid€drivers€[sic]€license€and€display€same€when€asked€to€by€lawÐ À  Ðenforcement€officers.Ьü ` x` x ÐÌÔ#†¼\»XX ‰´#ÔÔ‡X ‰X»¼\ÔÓ€ (5h83Óà  àAlthough€the€evidence€presented€was€sufficient€to€sustain€the€conviction,€we€conclude€thatÐ „Ô  Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€evidence€relating€to€the€chargeÐ pÀ Ðof€failure€to€carry€and€display€his€license€on€demand,€reverse€the€conviction,€and€dismiss€the€charge.€Ð \¬ ÐÔ#†¼\»XX ‰w#ÔÔ‡X ‰X»¼\ÔÌÔ#†¼\»XX ‰¬#ÔòòóóÔ€X ‰X»¼\Ôò òòòÓ  ÓFACTSó óóóÐ 4„ ÐÓÓò òó óòòóóà  àÌà  àOn€Saturday,€April€5,€1997,€at€the€beginning€of€their€shifts,€Troopers€Frank€Shearl€andÐ  \ ÐStephen€Parsley€of€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€approached€their€supervisor,€Sergeant€DennisÐ øH ÐMurray,€at€the€Rocky€Top€gas€station€in€Knoxville,€informed€him€that€they€wanted€to€conduct€aÐ ä4 Ðð ðtraffic€enforcementðð€roadblock€together€that€day,€pursuant€to€General€Order€410,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€received€hisÐ Ð  Ðpermission€to€establish€a€driverððs€license€checkpoint€underneath€the€South€Knoxville€Bridge€onÐ ¼  ÐRiverside€Drive€in€Knoxville.€€The€spot€was€a€ð ðpreapprovedðð€roadblock€site,€where€many€roadblocksÐ ¨ø Ðhad€been€conducted€in€the€past.€€The€road€was€two„lane,€approximately€twenty€to€twenty„two€feetÐ ”ä Ðwide,€and€ran€east€to€west€underneath€the€bridge.€€Paved€shoulders€€that€were€at€least€ten€feet€wideÐ €Ð Ðmade€it€possible€for€the€troopers€to€pull€vehicles€to€the€side€of€the€road€in€safety.€€Approximately€100Ð l¼ Ðto€200€feet€east€of€the€site,€and€400€to€500€feet€west,€sharp€curves€in€the€road€hid€the€roadblock€fromÐ X ¨ Ðapproaching€traffic.€€The€troopers€acknowledged€that€they€had€no€traffic€statistics€or€data€thatÐ D!” Ðindicated€the€need€for€a€traffic€enforcement€roadblock€at€that€site.€€Instead,€the€location€was€chosenÐ 0"€  Ðbecause€it€was€a€convenient€site€for€the€officers€to€conduct€a€roadblock.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€roadblock€was€begun€at€4:15€p.m.,€and€operated€€until€approximately€6:30€p.m.€€€TrooperÐ ô$D # ÐShearl,€as€the€officer€with€the€most€seniority,€was€in€charge.€Trooper€Parsley€testified€at€theÐ à%0!$ Ðsuppression€hearing€that€their€€ð ðpredeterminedðð€plan€was€to€stop€every€vehicle€that€came€through€theÐ Ì&"% Ðroadblock,€unless€the€conditions€became€too€hazardous€to€do€so.€€Both€troopers€were€in€uniform,€andÐ ° Ðthe€blue€lights€on€their€patrol€cars,€which€were€parked€on€the€westbound€shoulder€of€the€road,€wereÐ œì Ðactivated.€€However,€no€advance€publicity€of€the€checkpoint€was€given,€no€traffic€cones€were€set€upÐ ˆØ Ðto€direct€motorists€through€the€roadblock,€and€there€were€no€signs€to€warn€approaching€drivers€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€roadblock.€€Ð `° Ѐ€€Ð L œ Ðà  àThe€checkpoint€had€been€in€operation€for€approximately€an€hour€and€a€half€to€two€hours€Ð 8 ˆ Ðwhen€the€sixty„five„year„old€defendant,€Knoxville€lawyer€Joseph€J.€Levitt,€Jr.,€approached€it€in€theÐ $ t Ðeastbound€lane.€€The€defendant,€who€had€been€mowing€grass€at€one€of€his€rental€properties,€wasÐ  ` Ðdriving€a€1977€Chevrolet€van€and€towing€a€medium„sized€trailer€carrying€€lawn€equipment.€€TrooperÐ ü L  ÐShearl€was€in€his€patrol€car,€parked€on€the€westbound€shoulder€of€the€road,€writing€a€ticket€to€aÐ è 8  Ðviolator€who€was€parked€on€the€eastbound€shoulder.€€Immediately€in€front€of€the€defendant,€in€theÐ Ô$  Ðeastbound€lane,€Trooper€Parsley€had€stopped€a€small,€older€model€Chevrolet€Blazer€sport€utilityÐ À  Ðvehicle.€€The€Blazer€was€towing€a€ten„foot„wide€boat€trailer€carrying€a€twenty„four„foot„€longÐ ¬ü  Ðpontoon€boat€that€had€a€mooring€cover€over€it.€€Trooper€Parsley€was€standing€beside€the€driverððsÐ ˜è  Ðdoor,€checking€the€license€of€the€driver€of€the€Blazer.€€There€were€no€vehicles€stopped€in€theÐ „Ô  Ðwestbound€lane.€€€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€Trooper€Parsley€testified€that€he€was€talking€to€the€driver€of€theÐ H˜ ÐBlazer€when€€he€ð ðheard€gravel€being€kicked€up,€ðð€and€looked€up€to€see€the€defendantððs€orange€andÐ 4„ Ðwhite€van€coming€around€on€the€right,€traveling€on€the€gravel€portion€of€the€shoulder.€€He€said€thatÐ  p Ðhe€saw€the€van€veer,€and€almost€strike€a€parked€vehicle€ahead€of€it€on€the€shoulder,€before€reenteringÐ  \ Ðthe€paved€shoulder€and€then€the€traffic€lane.€€Later€in€his€testimony,€he€said€that€the€defendant€cameÐ øH Ðwithin€ð ðtwo€to€three€feetðð€of€the€parked€vehicle,€before€moving€back€over€into€the€eastbound€lane.€Ð ä4 ЀHe€estimated€the€speed€of€the€defendantððs€van€as€between€twenty„five€and€thirty€miles€per€hour,€andÐ Ð  Ðsaid€that,€although€that€was€within€the€speed€limit€on€Riverside€Drive,€the€manner€in€which€theÐ ¼  Ðdefendant€was€driving€ð ðwas€unsafe€for€the€conditions€at€the€time€we€were€there€at€the€roadblock.ðð€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àTrooper€Parsley€testified€that€when€he€yelled€ð ðstop,ðð€the€defendant€stopped€with€his€vehicleÐ €Ð Ðat€a€slight€angle,€with€the€ð ðleft€front€portionðð€of€his€bumper€ð ða€few€inchesðð€over€the€center€doubleÐ l¼ Ðyellow€line.€€He€said€that€he€handed€back€the€driverððs€license€of€the€driver€of€the€Blazer,€walked€upÐ X ¨ Ðto€the€defendant,€told€him€that€he€could€not€ð ðdrive€around€the€shoulder€like€that,ðð€and€asked€to€seeÐ D!” Ðhis€license.€€According€to€Trooper€Parsley,€the€defendant,€who€appeared€ð ðvery€irate,ðð€told€him€thatÐ 0"€  Ðhe€did€not€have€to€stop,€and€that€Trooper€Parsley€was€to€call€him€ð ðsir.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð #l! Їà  àOn€cross„examination,€Trooper€Parsley€acknowledged€that€from€his€position€beside€theÐ ° Ðdriverððs€door€of€the€Blazer,€he€could€not€see€traffic€approaching€behind€the€large€pontoon€boat.€€HeÐ œì Ðadmitted€that€he€had€not€stepped€away€from€the€Blazer€to€signal€approaching€traffic€to€stop.€He€alsoÐ ˆØ Ðacknowledged€that€they€had€no€traffic€cones€set€up€at€the€roadblock,€that€he€was€not€wearing€aÐ tÄ Ðreflective€safety€vest,€and€that€he€was€not€using€a€flashlight.€€He€pointed€out,€however,€that€it€wasÐ `° Ðdaylight€at€the€time,€which€made€reflective€vests€and€flashlights€unnecessary.€€When€asked€whetherÐ L œ Ðthere€was€anything€to€distinguish€him€ð ðfrom€checking€out€a€wreck,ðð€he€answered,€ð ðIn€my€perception,Ð 8 ˆ Ðno.ðð€€He€also€verified€that€during€the€preliminary€hearing,€he€had€acknowledged€that€whether€he€hadÐ $ t Ðbeen€conducting€a€roadblock€or€investigating€a€wreck€probably€would€have€depended€on€theÐ  ` Ðperception€of€the€individual€driver.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€testified€that€the€site€appeared€to€him€to€be€the€scene€of€an€accident.€€€As€heÐ Ô$  Ðrounded€the€sharp€curve€leading€to€the€bridge,€he€saw€the€flashing€lights€of€the€patrol€cars€on€theÐ À  Ðshoulder€on€the€left€side€of€the€road€and€the€back€end€of€the€boat€trailer.€€However,€he€did€not€seeÐ ¬ü  ÐTrooper€Parsley€standing€in€the€road€beside€the€Blazer,€or€anything€else€that€would€have€indicatedÐ ˜è  Ðthat€it€was€a€roadblock,€rather€than€an€accident.€€He€testified€that€he€drove€slowly€toward€the€scene,Ð „Ô  Ðlooking€to€see€if€the€way€was€clear€for€him€to€drive€around.€€He€explained€that€he€was€familiar€withÐ pÀ Ðthe€road,€and€knew€that€there€was€another€sharp€curve€only€a€short€distance€ahead,€just€beyond€theÐ \¬ Ðbridge.€€He€therefore€decided€to€pass€the€boat€and€Blazer€on€the€right,€driving€around€on€the€pavedÐ H˜ Ðshoulder€of€the€roadway.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€said€that€he€was€on€the€lookout€for€broken€glass€in€the€road,€and€was€ð ðjustÐ  \ Ðcreepingðð׃°×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€as€he€drove€past€the€boat€and€Blazer.€€After€his€trailer€had€cleared€the€Blazer,€he€beganÐ øH Ðeasing€back€over€into€the€lane.€€When€he€was€back€in€the€lane,€he€heard€someone€yell,€ð ðHey,Ð ä4 Ðasshole.ðð€€When€he€heard€it€again,€he€leaned€out€of€the€window€and€saw€Trooper€Parsley€comingÐ Ð  Ðtoward€him.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€asked,€ð ðOfficer,€is€there€something€wrong?ðð€and€thatÐ ¼  ÐTrooper€Parsley€answered,€ð ðYes,€asshole,€stop.ðð€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€told€the€officer,€ð ðIÐ ¨ø Ðdonððt€believe€you€should€talk€to€citizens€like€that.€You€can€call€me€sir.ðð€€The€defendant€describedÐ ”ä Ðwhat€next€ensued:€Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis€officer€here,€Parsley,€came€up€to€my€car,€and€by€thenð!ðI€had€myÐ X ¨ Ðarm€on€the€window,€and€I€pushed€my€gear€shift€into€park,€and€I€askedÐ D!” Ðhim,€I€said€ð!ð€again,€if€there€was€something€wrong,€and€he€called€meÐ 0"€  Ðasshole€again,€said€he€didnððt€have€to€call€me€sir,€and€grabbed€my€armÐ ° Ðand€then€just€boom,€boom,€boom.€€Somebody€grabbed€my€arm.€€I€wasÐ œì Ðsprayed€in€the€face.€€The€door€was€jerked€open,€and€I€was€pulled€outÐ ˆØ Ðand€my€arm,€still€laying€up€there€on€the€thing,€and€it€pulled€theð!ðtheÐ tÄ Ðvehicle€out€of€park.€€And€pulled€me€out€on€the€ground€and€sprayed€meÐ `° Ðeitherð!ðeither€once€in€the€van€and€once€coming€out€the€door€or€twiceÐ L œ Ðin€the€van.€€Iððm€really€not€sure.€€Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌà  àPaul€Michael€McLain,€the€driver€of€the€Chevrolet€Blazer,€testified€that€earlier€that€afternoonÐ  ` Ðhe€and€his€wife€had€driven€to€the€boat€ramp€at€the€South€Knoxville€Bridge€so€that€he€could€help€hisÐ ü L  Ðfriend,€Randy€Reynolds,€tow€his€boat€home.€€On€their€way€to€meet€Reynolds,€they€drove€through€theÐ è 8  Ðroadblock€without€being€stopped.€€He€said€they€had€not€realized€that€it€was€a€roadblock,€and€hadÐ Ô$  Ðthought€they€were€approaching€a€wreck.€€He€saw€the€troopers,€but€they€were€at€another€vehicle,€andÐ À  Ðthere€were€no€signs€to€indicate€that€they€were€conducting€a€roadblock.€Ð ¬ü  ЀÌà  àOn€the€return€trip€with€the€boat,€McLain€was€driving€Reynoldsðð€Blazer.€€With€him€in€theÐ „Ô  ÐBlazer€were€Reynolds,€Reynoldsðð€wife€Rita,€and€another€woman€named€Sharon€Monday.€€This€time,Ð pÀ Ðdriving€in€the€eastbound€lane,€he€was€stopped€by€an€officer,€whom€he€later€identified€as€TrooperÐ \¬ ÐParsley,€who€asked€to€see€his€driverððs€license€and€whether€he€had€been€drinking.€€McLain€said€thatÐ H˜ Ðhe€told€the€trooper€that€he€had€not€had€anything€but€iced€tea,€and€they€were€joking€about€that€as€theÐ 4„ Ðdefendant€came€driving€around€the€Blazer€on€the€right€shoulder.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€wasÐ  p Ðdriving€ð ðvery€slow,ðð€at€ð ða€speed€of€five€miles€an€hour€or€less,ðð€did€not€veer€or€swerve,€and€was€notÐ  \ Ðkicking€up€a€cloud€of€dust,€rocks,€or€gravel.€€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àMcLain€said€that€Trooper€Parsley€yelled€ð ðHeyðð€or€ð ðsome€wordsðð€at€the€defendant€€and€that,Ð Ð  Ðalthough€the€defendant€did€not€stop€immediately,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€he€eventually€came€to€a€stop€with€the€end€of€hisÐ ¼  Ðtrailer€approximately€thirty€feet€in€front€of€the€Blazer.€€Trooper€Parsley€left€the€Blazer€and€went€upÐ ¨ø Ðto€the€door€of€the€defendantððs€van.€€McLain€could€not€hear€any€of€the€conversation,€but€saw€TrooperÐ ”ä ÐParsley€standing€at€the€door€of€the€van€for€ten€or€fifteen€seconds.€€He€then€saw€the€other€trooper€startÐ €Ð Ðacross€the€road€toward€the€van.€€Halfway€across€the€road,€this€second€trooper€took€something€out€ofÐ l¼ Ðhis€belt€and€started€shaking€it.€€When€the€second€trooper€reached€the€van,€he€sprayed€something€inÐ X ¨ Ðthe€driverððs€window.€€McLain€testified€that€the€driverððs€door€was€closed€at€the€time.€€Together,€theÐ D!” Ðtwo€troopers€physically€removed€the€defendant€from€his€van.€€The€second€trooper€then€jumped€in€theÐ 0"€  Ðvan€to€stop€it€from€rolling€away,€and€Trooper€Parsley€began€leading€the€defendant€across€the€street.€Ð #l! ÐHalfway€across,€he€stuck€his€foot€out,€tripping€the€defendant,€who€fell€to€his€knees€and€lost€hisÐ $X" Ðeyeglasses€in€the€process.€€As€€the€defendant€groped€for€his€glasses€with€his€free€hand,€TrooperÐ ô$D # ÐParsley€€ð ðtook€his€foot€and,€like€a€sweeping€kick,€kicked€his€glasses€out€of€the€way.ðð€€After€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendant€was€handcuffed,€the€officers€motioned€for€McLain€to€drive€on.€Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àOn€cross„examination,€McLain€testified€that€he€could€not€recall€seeing€the€defendant€kickÐ ° Ðâ âTrooper€Parsley,€and€that€he€could€not€say€who€had€opened€the€van€door.€€When€asked€if€he€had€seenÐ œì Ðthe€defendant€kick€at€Trooper€Parsley,€he€answered,€ð ðà8 @^ àà8 @^ àThe€door€come€open,€the€officers€was€[sic]Ð ˆØ Ðremoving€him€from€the€vehicle,€I€seen€legs€at€that€time,€you€know.€€Whether€they€were€in€a€kickingÐ tÄ Ðmotion,€I€cannot€tell€you€that,€sir.€€I€donððt€know.ðð€€McLain€admitted€that€he€had€not€reported€TrooperÐ `° ÐParsleyððs€treatment€of€the€defendant€to€any€authorities.€€He€said€that€he€had€contacted€the€defendantÐ L œ Ðafter€Reynolds€read€an€article€in€the€newspaper€about€the€incident,€and€recognized€it€as€the€same€oneÐ 8 ˆ Ðthey€had€witnessed.€Ð $ t Ðà  àà ` àà Œ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àÌà  àRandy€Reynolds,€the€owner€of€the€Blazer,€testified€that€he€was€sitting€in€the€front€passengerÐ ü L  Ðseat€when€he€saw€the€defendant€drive€past€the€Blazer€on€the€shoulder,€traveling€very€slowly,€atÐ è 8  Ðð ðthree,€four,€five€mile€an€hour,€somewhere€around€there.ðð€€He€described€what€occurred:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àWell,€I€noticed€it€[the€defendantððs€van]€when€he€got€about€to€theÐ ¬ü  Ðmirror,€and€the€officer€holleredð!ðwhen€he€got€about€to€the€front€of€theÐ ˜è  ÐBlazer,€the€officer€hollered,€ð ðStop,ðð€I€believe€thatððs€what€it€was,€andÐ „Ô  Ðso€he€kind€of€pulled€on€up€a€little,€maybe€five,€ten€foot,€and€he€wasÐ pÀ Ðjust€barely€rolling€and€oneð!ðone€officer€runs€over€and€grabs€the€door,Ð \¬ Ðand€the€other€one€runs€and€grabs€him€and€jerks€him€out,€and€oneÐ H˜ Ðthrows€it€in€park.€€€Ð4„` x` x ÐÌReynolds€said€that€he€did€not€see€any€signs€announcing€that€the€troopers€were€conducting€aÐ  \ Ðroadblock.€€He€had€assumed€that€it€was€a€roadblock,€however,€because€he€had€had€the€opportunityÐ øH Ðto€watch€the€troopers€for€ten€or€fifteen€minutes€as€he€loaded€his€boat€onto€the€trailer.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€he€testified€that€the€defendantððs€van€slowed€down,€but€never€came€toÐ ¼  Ða€complete€stop.€€The€rear€of€the€defendantððs€trailer,€he€said,€was€about€ten€feet€in€front€of€his€BlazerÐ ¨ø Ðwhen€the€first€trooper€started€toward€the€van.€That€trooper€said€something€to€the€defendant,€whichÐ ”ä ÐReynolds€could€not€hear.€€He€then€opened€the€door€of€the€van€and€grabbed€the€defendant,€while€theÐ €Ð Ðsecond€trooper€put€the€van€in€park.€€After€the€troopers€had€pulled€the€defendant€out€of€the€van,€theÐ l¼ Ðfirst€trooper,€who€had€the€defendantððs€arm€in€a€twisting€hold,€put€his€foot€behind€the€defendantððsÐ X ¨ Ðlegs,€and€ð ðtook€him€downðð€to€the€ground.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€issued€an€oral€ruling€denying€the€motion€toÐ #l! Ðsuppress.€€In€its€ruling,€the€court€indicated€that€it€was€finding€that€the€constitutionality€of€theÐ $X" Ðroadblock€was€irrelevant€because€the€defendant€had€driven€around€the€checkpoint:€òòóóà Ð àÐ ô$D # ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWeððre€not€talking€about€someone€who€did€not€comply€with€a€willfulð!ðIÐ Ì&"% Ðdonððt€see€the€roadblock€as€the€issue€here.€€I€donððt.€€I€think€that€[theÐ ¸'#& Ðdefendant]€candidly€said€that€he€thought€it€was€a€wreck,€and€Iððll€takeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthatð!ðIððll€take€that€as€money€in€the€bank.€€The€question€becomesÐ )à$( Ðafterð!ðI€donððt€think€he€did€anything€improper.€€I€donððt€think€he€didÐ |*Ì%) Ðanything€improper€by€going€by,€but€the€question€is,€once€the€officerÐ h+¸&* Ðsays€ð ðStop,ðð€what€happens?€€I€think€the€officer€at€that€point€had€aÐ ° Ðright€to€say€ð ðStop.ðð€€Up€until€then,€I€donððt€see€anything€wrong€withÐ œì Ðthis€process.€€ÐˆØ` x` x ÐÌà  àHowever,€as€the€following€exchange€makes€clear,€the€court€also€gave€at€least€some€indicationÐ `° Ðthat€it€was€finding€the€roadblock€constitutional,€based€on€the€fact€that€it€did€not€substantially€deviateÐ L œ Ðfrom€the€procedures€established€in€Department€of€Safety€General€Order€410:€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àMR.€BELL:€€But,€Your€Honor,€he€had€him€stopped,€not€becauseÐ  ` Ðof€a€wreck€but€because€the€officer€believed€he€was€conducting€aÐ ü L  Ðroadblock.€€Thatððs€whatð!ðÐè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àTHE€COURT:€€You€see,€I€donððtð!ðwell,€then€we€go€back€to€is€thisÐ À  Ða€lawful€roadblock?€€I€believe€that€under€General€Order€410,€I€donððtÐ ¬ü  Ðthink€that€what€happened€deviates€substantially€fromð!ðwhat€happenedÐ ˜è  Ðfactually€in€this€case,€deviates€substantially€from€410.€€Now,€I€thinkÐ „Ô  Ðthat€Downey€has€cleaned€up€a€lot€of€what€410€did,€but€thatððs€theÐ pÀ Ðproblem€with€running€these€cases€three€years€down€the€line.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àIððll€tell€you,€gentlemenð!ðI€mean,€I€amð!ðthis€is€somewhat€probablyÐ 4„ Ðunusual€coming€from€a€court,€but€I€donððt€see€the€problems€leading€upÐ  p Ðto€the€stop.€€I€see€terrible€problems€after€it€happened.€I€meanð!ð€Ð \` x` x ÐÌà  àWhen€asked€to€clarify€its€ruling€regarding€the€constitutionality€of€the€stop,€the€court€explainedÐ ä4 Ðthat€it€did€not€find€the€procedures€for€constitutionally€reasonable€sobriety€checkpoints,€adopted€byÐ Ð  Ðour€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Downeyóó,€945€S.W.2d€102€(Tenn.€1997),òòóó€applicable€to€the€case:Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àYour€ruling€is€as€follows.€€As€to€Downey,€I€find€that€it€does€not€apply.€Ð ”ä ÐAs€a€matter€of€law,€I€have€considered€the€changes€that€were€made€toÐ €Ð ÐGeneral€Order€410€based€on€the€Downey€case.€€I€think€I€have€run€thatÐ l¼ Ðthrough€my€mind.€€Standing,€I€donððt€think€is€an€issue€in€this€case.€€IÐ X ¨ Ðthink€that€[the€defendant]€availed€himself€to€what€is€a€right€of€his,Ð D!” Ðwhich€is€to€proceed€around.€€I€donððt€think€it€was€a€necessarily€safeÐ 0"€  Ðaction.€€I€donððt€think€that€everyone€would€do€that,€but€I€believe€thatÐ #l! Ðhe€was€within€his€power€to€do€that,€but€I€also€think€that€the€officerÐ $X" Ðhad,€within€his€duty,€the€option€to€ask€[the€defendant]€to€stop,€and€IÐ ô$D # Ðbelieve€that€occurred.€€I€think€the€officer€acted€lawfully€and€[theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendant]€acted€lawfully,€and€so€I€find€that€there€was€no€unlawfulÐ Ì&"% Ðhalt,€there€was€no€unlawful€stop.€I€donððt€find€the€roadblockÐ ¸'#& Ðprocedures€persuasive€in€any€way,€and€I€think€that€the€case€will€goÐ ¤(ô#' Ðforward€like€that.€€Ð)à$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€court€went€on€to€find€that€the€evidence€did€not€support€the€reckless€driving€charge,€andÐ ° Ðâ âthat€the€defendantððs€ð ðaction€did€not,€in€and€of€themselves,€[sic]€constitute€an€act€that€might€by€itselfÐ œì Ðbe€sufficient€to€stop€the€car.ðð€€When€asked€on€what€basis€it€was€finding€that€the€trooper€had€lawfullyÐ ˆØ Ðstopped€the€defendant,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€was€based€on:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€statute€of€when€blue€lights€are€running,€the€law€enforcementÐ L œ Ðofficer€is€running€whatever€process€on€the€road,€whether€heððs€workingÐ 8 ˆ Ða€wreck,€whether€heððs€running€a€roadblock,€whatever€it€is,€at€thatÐ $ t Ðparticular€time,€the€road€was€quarantined€off€or€it€was€at€least€beingÐ  ` Ðsupervised€by€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol,€and€[the€defendant]Ð ü L  Ðdidnððt€know€why.€€He€was€acting€on€his€own.€€Thatððs€fine.€€TheÐ è 8  Ðofficer€had€different€intentions,€but€his€intentions€were€well€founded.€Ð Ô$  ÐHe€didnððt€know€if€[the€defendant]€was€driving€around€to€avoid€that€orÐ À  Ðto€drive€around€to€avoid€a€wreck,€to€avoid€whatever,€just€didnððt€knowÐ ¬ü  Ðif€he€was€getting€around€the€edge.Иè ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àMy€ruling€is€that€nothing€improper€on€either€side€occurred.€€ButÐ pÀ ÐI€think€the€officer€had€a€right€to€stop€him,€and€[the€defendant]€didÐ \¬ Ðwhat€law€enforcementð!ðor€what€law„abiding€citizens€would€do,€whichÐ H˜ Ðis€stop.€€At€that€point€itððsð!ðthatððs€really€what€the€jury€is€going€toÐ 4„ Ðdecide,€but€I€think€I€haveð!ð€Ð p` x` x ÐÌà  àBased€on€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€defense€counsel€moved€to€amend€the€motion€to€suppressÐ øH Ðto€include€an€argument€that€the€trooper€had€no€reasonable€suspicion€to€justify€a€òòTerryóó„typeòòóó׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€stop€ofÐ ä4 Ðthe€defendant.€€In€response,€the€trial€court€first€repeated€that€the€trooper€lawfully€stopped€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendant€pursuant€to€his€authority€to€direct€and€control€traffic€on€public€roads,€stating:€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWell,€reasonable€suspicion€is€what€the€buzzword€is,€but€this€is€one€theÐ ”ä ÐStateð!ðand€I€think€itððs€a€proper€contention€when€a€law€enforcementÐ €Ð Ðofficer€has€given€an€order€for€a€motorist€to€stop,€they€are€to€stop.€Ð l¼ ÐWeððre€not€talking€about€a€search.€€Weððre€not€talking€about€evidenceÐ X ¨ Ðthat€was€gained€after.€€Weððre€talking€about€a€terrible€thing€thatÐ D!” Ðoccurred€after€the€stop.€€Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌHowever,€the€court€later€went€on€to€indicate€that€it€was€finding€that€the€trooper€had€reasonableÐ $X" Ðsuspicion€for€the€stop,€stating€that€the€trooper€was€not€mistaken€in€the€stop,€and€that€it€occurredÐ ô$D # Ðbecause€ð ð[i]n€his€mind€he€thought€you€were€going€around€his€roadblock.ðð€€The€defendant€thenÐ à%0!$ Ðproceeded€to€trial€on€the€two€remaining€charges€of€the€indictment.€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà@òò&ìàòòò òANALYSISó óóóˆÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÐ )à$( Ðà@J J ìàò òI.€€Trial€Courtððs€Denial€of€Motion€to€SuppressˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àó óIn€challenging€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion€to€suppress,€the€defendant€argues,€first,€Ð ˆØ Ðthat€driversðð€license€checkpoints€are€òòper€seóó€unconstitutional,€and€second,€that€even€if€not€òòper€seÐ tÄ Ðóóunconstitutional,€the€checkpoint€at€issue€in€this€case€failed€to€satisfy€the€guidelines€established€in€Ð `° ÐòòState€v.€Downeyóó,€945€S.W.2d€102€(Tenn.€1997),€and€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€55€S.W.3d€515€(Tenn.€2001),Ð L œ Ðfor€a€constitutional€suspicionless€stop.׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€State€responds€by€arguing€that€the€constitutionality€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€roadblock€is€irrelevant.€€The€State€contends€that€the€defendant€was€stopped€for€the€recklessÐ $ t Ðmanner€in€which€he€drove€around€the€roadblock,€and€that€the€trooperððs€request€for€his€license€wasÐ  ` Ða€permissible€part€of€a€valid€investigatory€stop.€€òòóóò òó óÐ ü L  ÐÌà@  ìàò òA.€€Standard€of€ReviewˆÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àó óWe€review€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€by€the€followingÐ ¬ü  Ðwell„established€standard:€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àQuestions€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€evidence,€and€resolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€mattersÐ \¬ Ðentrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€The€party€prevailing€inÐ H˜ Ðthe€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÐ 4„ Ðevidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing€as€well€as€all€reasonableÐ  p Ðand€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€that€evidence.€€SoÐ  \ Ðlong€as€the€greater€weight€of€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððsÐ øH Ðfindings,€those€findings€shall€be€upheld.€€In€other€words,€a€trialÐ ä4 Ðcourtððs€findings€of€fact€in€a€suppression€hearing€will€be€upheld€unlessÐ Ð  Ðthe€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€Ð¼ ` x` x ÐÌÔ‡X ‰XXX ‰ÔòòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).Ô#†X ‰XXX ‰o€#ÔÔ‡X ‰XXX ‰Ô€€However,€the€€trial€courtððs€application€of€law€toÐ ”ä Ðthe€facts,€as€a€matter€of€law,€is€reviewed€òòdeóó€òònovoóó,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòState€v.Ð €Ð ÐDanielóó,€12€S.W.3d€420,€423€(Tenn.€2000).€€This€court€may€consider€the€proof€at€trial,€as€well€as€atÐ l¼ Ðthe€suppression€hearing,€when€considering€the€appropriateness€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€a€pretrialÐ X ¨ Ðmotion€to€suppress.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€975€S.W.2d€290,€299€(Tenn.€1998)€(holding€that€becauseÐ D!” Ðthe€rules€of€appellate€procedure€ð ðcontemplate€that€allegations€of€error€should€be€evaluated€in€lightÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€entire€record[,]ðð€an€appellate€court€ð ðmay€consider€the€proof€adduced€both€at€the€suppressionÐ #l! Ðhearing€and€at€trialðð).Ð $X" ÐÔ#†X ‰XXX ‰å€#Ôò òó óÌà@ggìàò òB.€€€Denial€of€Motion€to€Suppressó óˆÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àò òó óIn€order€to€set€the€framework€for€our€review,€and€because€the€defendantððs€brief€focuses€onÐ ¸'#& Ðthis€topic,€we€will€begin€our€analysis€by€examining€the€constitutionality€of€the€roadblock€at€issue€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthis€case.€€Both€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€7€ofÐ ° Ðthe€Tennessee€Constitution€protect€individuals€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.Ð œì ÐConst.€amend.€IV;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€7.€€ð ðThese€constitutional€provisions€are€designed€toÐ ˆØ Ðððsafeguard€the€privacy€and€security€of€individuals€against€arbitrary€invasions€of€governmentÐ tÄ Ðofficials.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Keithóó,€978€S.W.2d€861,€865€(Tenn.€1998)€(quoting€òòCamara€v.€Municipal€Courtóó,Ð `° Ð387€U.S.€523,€528,€87€S.€Ct.€1727,€1730,€18€L.€Ed.€2d€930€(1967)).€€A€search€or€seizure€conductedÐ L œ Ðwithout€a€warrant€is€presumed€unreasonable,€and€evidence€obtained€as€a€result€will€be€suppressedÐ 8 ˆ Ðð ðunless€the€prosecution€demonstrates€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€search€or€seizureÐ $ t Ðwas€conducted€pursuant€to€an€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€865€(citations€omitted).€òòóóÐ  ` ÐThe€stop€of€an€automobile,€even€for€the€short€duration€involved€in€a€driverððs€checkpoint,€constitutesÐ ü L  Ða€seizure€under€both€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€òòSeeóó€òòWhren€v.€United€Statesóó,Ð è 8  Ð517€U.S.€806,€809„10,€116€S.€Ct.€1769,€1772,€135€L.€Ed.€2d€89€(1996);€òòMichigan€v.€Sitzóó,€496€U.S.Ð Ô$  Ð444,€449„51,€110€S.€Ct.€2481,€2485,€110€L.€Ed.€2d€412€(1990);òòóó€òòDelaware€v.€Prouseóó,€440€U.S.€648,Ð À  Ð663,€99€S.€Ct.€1391,€1401,€59€L.€Ed.€2d€660€(1979);òòóó€òòState€v.€Downeyóó,€945€S.W.2d€102,€107€(Tenn.Ð ¬ü  Ð1997).€€Thus,€to€be€considered€reasonable,€the€warrantless€stop€of€an€automobile€must€fall€under€oneÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€exceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement.€€These€exceptions€include€investigative€stops€based€onÐ „Ô  Ðreasonable€suspicion€of€wrongdoing€on€the€part€of€the€occupants€of€the€vehicle,€€òòseeóó€òòWhrenóó,€517€U.S.Ð pÀ Ðat€810,€116€S.€Ct.€at€1769;€òòProuseóó,€440€U.S.€at€655,€99€S.€Ct.€at€1391;€òòState€v.€Vineyardóó,€958€S.W.2dÐ \¬ Ð730,€734€(Tenn.€1997),€and€roadblocks€that€are€conducted€ð ðpursuant€to€a€plan€embodying€explicit,Ð H˜ Ðneutral€limitations€on€the€conduct€of€individual€officers.ðð€€òòBrown€v.€Texasóó,€443€U.S.€47,€51,€99€S.Ð 4„ ÐCt.€2637,€2640,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€357€(1979).€€Under€the€latter€exception,€the€United€States€SupremeÐ  p ÐCourt,€balancing€the€public€interest€in€preventing€drunk€driving€against€the€Fourth€AmendmentÐ  \ Ðinterest€of€the€individual,€has€held€that€a€roadblock€designed€to€check€for€intoxicated€drivers€is€notÐ øH Ðviolative€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€òòSitzóó,€496€U.S.€at€453,€110€S.Ð ä4 ÐCt.€at€2485.€Ð Ð  Ѐà  àÐ ¼  Ðà  àIn€òòState€v.€Downeyóó,€945€S.W.2d€102€(Tenn.€1997),€our€supreme€court€adopted€the€balancingÐ ¨ø Ðanalysis€used€in€òòSitzóó€to€determine€whether€sobriety€checkpoints€violate€Article€I,€Section€7€of€theÐ ”ä ÐTennessee€Constitution.€€òòId.óó€at€110.€€Under€this€analysis,€which€weighs€ð ðððthe€gravity€of€the€publicÐ €Ð Ðconcerns€served€by€the€seizure,€the€degree€to€which€the€seizure€advances€the€public€interest,€and€theÐ l¼ Ðseverity€of€the€interference€with€individual€liberty,ðððð€òòid.óó€at€107€(quoting€òòBrownóó,€443€U.S.€at€50„51,Ð X ¨ Ð99€S.€Ct.€at€2640),€the€court€concluded€that€a€sobriety€checkpoint,€because€of€the€compelling€publicÐ D!” Ðinterest€in€preventing€drunk€driving,€can€be€a€reasonable€seizure€under€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÐ 0"€  Ðð ðprovided€it€is€established€and€operated€in€aòòóóccordance€with€predetermined€operational€guidelines€andÐ #l! Ðsupervisory€authority€that€minimize€the€risk€of€arbitrary€intrusion€on€individuals€and€limit€theÐ $X" Ðdiscretion€of€law€enforcement€officers€at€the€scene.ðð€òòId.óó€at€104.€€Because€the€evidence€in€òòDowneyóóÐ ô$D # Ðrevealed€that€the€decision€to€operate€the€checkpoint€was€made€by€an€officer€in€the€field,€who€actedÐ à%0!$ Ðwithout€any€supervisory€or€administrative€oversight€of€his€actions,€the€court€found€that€the€roadblockÐ Ì&"% Ðwas€unconstitutional€under€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòId.óó€at€110„11.€òòÐ ¸'#& ÐóóÌà  àMore€recently,€in€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€55€S.W.3d€515€(Tenn.€2001),€òòóóour€supreme€court€addressedÐ )à$( Ðthe€constitutionality€of€driversðð€license€roadblocks€under€òòóóArticle€I,€Section€7€of€the€TennesseeÐ |*Ì%) ÐConstitution.€€òòId.óó€at€519.€€The€court€explained€that€the€balancing€test€used€in€òòDowneyóó€is€to€be€appliedÐ h+¸&* Ðnot€just€to€sobriety€checkpoints,€but€in€ð ðall€cases€involving€constitutional€challenges€to€roadblocksÐ ° Ðor€checkpoints€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€524.€€It€next€determined€that,€under€theÐ œì ÐòòDowneyóó€test,€ð ða€roadblock€will€necessarily€fail€constitutional€examination€if€it€lacks€a€sufficientlyÐ ˆØ Ðcompelling€state€interest.ðð€òòId.óó€at€527.€€The€court€then€considered€whether€there€is€a€sufficientlyÐ tÄ Ðcompelling€state€interest€in€roadblocks€established€solely€to€check€driversðð€licenses.€€After€examiningÐ `° Ðthe€Stateððs€assertion€that€driversðð€license€roadblocks€are€necessary€to€ensure€highway€safety€byÐ L œ Ðdetecting€and€deterring€unlicensed€drivers,€it€concluded€€that€€ð ðno€evidence€in€the€record€establishesÐ 8 ˆ Ðthis€fact,€or€even€if€true,€establishes€that€this€interest€is€sufficiently€compelling€to€justifyÐ $ t Ðsuspicionless€stops.ðð€€òòId.óó€€The€court€wrote:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àBecause€the€exceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement€ð ðare€jealouslyÐ è 8  Ðand€carefully€drawn,ðð€the€State€must€show€that€ð ðthe€exigencies€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðsituation€made€the€search€[or€seizure]€òòimperativeóó.ðð€€òòState€v.€Bartramóó,Ð À  Ð925€S.W.2d€227,€230€(Tenn.€1996)€(emphasis€added€and€internalÐ ¬ü  Ðquotations€omitted).€€Therefore,€as€required€in€òòDowneyóó,€the€StateÐ ˜è  Ðmust€show€that€drivers€not€possessing€a€license€are€unable€to€safelyÐ „Ô  Ðoperate€motor€vehicles€on€the€roads€and€highways€of€this€state;€thatÐ pÀ Ðan€unlicensed€driver€invariably€presents€an€imminent€danger€of€deathÐ \¬ Ðor€serious€bodily€injury€to€other€drivers€that€is€not€typically€presentÐ H˜ Ðwith€licensed€drivers;€and€that€the€safety€threat€from€unlicensedÐ 4„ Ðdrivers€is€of€such€a€magnitude€that€the€problem,€coupled€with€its€riskÐ  p Ðof€harm,€commands€heightened€attention.€€Only€when€this€showingÐ  \ Ðis€made€may€courts€find€that€the€State€has€a€sufficiently€compellingÐ øH Ðinterest€to€justify€maintaining€driversðð€license€roadblocks.€€Ðä4` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  à€In€a€separate€concurring€opinion,€Chief€Justice€Anderson,€joined€by€Justice€Birch,€concludedÐ ”ä Ðthat€driversðð€license€roadblocks€are€òòper€seóó€unconstitutional€under€Article€I,€Section€7€of€theÐ €Ð ÐTennessee€Constitution€because€a€sufficiently€compelling€state€interest€in€driversðð€license€roadblocksÐ l¼ Ðcan€never€be€shown.òòóó€€òòId.óó€at€539.€€Distinguishing€driversðð€license€roadblocks€from€sobrietyÐ X ¨ Ðroadblocks,€Justice€Anderson€wrote:€€ð ðIn€my€view,€there€is€no€basis€upon€which€to€reasonablyÐ D!” Ðconclude€that€a€motorist€who€is€not€in€possession€of€a€valid€driversðð€license€òònecessarilyóó€poses€anÐ 0"€  Ðimmediate€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury€great€enough€to€warrant€the€suspicionless€stopÐ #l! Ðofòò€allóó€drivers€at€a€checkpoint.ðð€òòId.óó€at€540€(emphasis€in€original).Ð $X" ЀÌà  àIn€light€of€òòHicksóó,€we€conclude€that€the€driversðð€license€checkpoint€in€this€case€was€anÐ à%0!$ Ðunreasonable€seizure,€violative€of€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€€First€andÐ Ì&"% Ðforemost,€the€required€showing€of€a€compelling€state€interest€was€not€made.€ð ðOnly€when€the€StateÐ ¸'#& Ðmakes€the€required€showing,€as€it€has€previously€done€with€sobriety€checkpoints,€may€courts€acceptÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€presence€of€the€compelling€interest€and€proceed€to€further€analyze€the€roadblock€under€thisÐ )à$( Ðdecision€and€òòDowneyóó.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€528.€€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àHowever,€even€had€the€State€established€a€compelling€interest,€we€would€still€have€noÐ ° Ðhesitation€in€determining€that€the€roadblock€here€failed€to€pass€constitutional€muster,€based€on€itsÐ œì Ðfailure€to€be€established€and€operated€in€a€manner€that€minimized€òòóóits€intrusiveness€on€individualÐ ˆØ Ðfreedom.òòóó€€The€òòHicksóó€court€made€it€clear€that€driversðð€license€roadblocks€are€subject€to€the€sameÐ tÄ Ðrequirements€for€constitutional€reasonableness€as€sobriety€roadblocks.€€òòId.óó€at€537€n.13.€€€AccordingÐ `° Ðto€the€court:òòóó€€à ` àÐ L œ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[T]he€most€important€attribute€of€a€reasonable€roadblock€is€theÐ $ t Ðpresence€of€genuine€limitations€upon€the€discretion€of€the€officers€inÐ  ` Ðthe€field.€€Two€facts€are€critical€to€finding€that€the€officersðð€discretionÐ ü L  Ðon€the€scene€was€properly€limited:€(1)€the€decision€to€set€up€theÐ è 8  Ðroadblock€in€the€first€instance€cannot€have€been€made€by€the€officerÐ Ô$  Ðor€officers€actually€establishing€the€checkpoint,€and€(2)€the€officers€onÐ À  Ðthe€scene€cannot€decide€for€themselves€the€procedures€to€be€used€inÐ ¬ü  Ðoperating€the€roadblock.€€In€all€cases,€therefore,€the€State€must€showÐ ˜è  Ðthat€some€authority€superior€to€the€officers€in€the€field€decided€toÐ „Ô  Ðestablish€the€roadblock,€particularly€as€to€its€time€and€location,€andÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€officers€adhered€to€neutral€standards€previously€fixed€byÐ \¬ Ðadministrative€decision€or€regulation.€€To€be€clear,€these€factors€areÐ H˜ Ðso€essential€to€a€reasonable€roadblock€that€the€absence€of€either€ofÐ 4„ Ðthem€will€necessarily€result€in€the€invalidation€of€the€stops.€Ð p` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€533€(citation€omitted).€Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€roadblock€here€did€not€meet€these€minimal€standards€for€constitutionality.€€There€wasÐ Ð  Ðno€meaningful€prior€administrative€authorization€or€approval€for€the€establishment€of€the€roadblockÐ ¼  Ðat€the€Riverside€Drive€location€on€the€afternoon€of€April€5,€1997.€€Troopers€Parsley€and€ShearlÐ ¨ø Ðformulated€the€plan€for€the€roadblock€together,€and€had€a€location€picked€out,€before€approachingÐ ”ä ÐSergeant€Murray€at€the€service€station€to€obtain€his€approval.€€Although€Sergeant€MurrayððsÐ €Ð Ðpermission€may€have€technically€complied€with€the€òòDowneyóó€requirement€that€the€party€responsibleÐ l¼ Ðfor€establishing€the€roadblock€be€different€from€the€party€responsible€for€approving€it,€we€cannotÐ X ¨ Ðconclude€that€mere€acquiescence€to€an€already€formulated€plan€satisfies€the€reasonablenessÐ D!” Ðrequirement.€€It€is€also€clear€that€the€officers€in€the€field,€who€were€totally€unsupervised€at€the€scene,Ð 0"€  Ðchose€the€time€of€the€roadblock,€the€procedures€to€be€employed,€and€which€vehicles€were€to€beÐ #l! Ðstopped.€Further€evidence€supporting€the€unreasonableness€of€the€roadblock€includes€the€lack€ofÐ $X" Ðadvance€publicity,€the€failure€to€have€traffic€cones€or€warning€signs€in€place,€and€testimonyÐ ô$D # Ðindicating€that€Trooper€Parsley€used€the€roadblock€as€a€subterfuge€to€question€at€least€one€driverÐ à%0!$ Ðabout€his€drinking.€€òòSee€generallyóó,€òòid.óó€at€534„38.€€Ð Ì&"% Ѐ€€Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àHad€the€defendant€stayed€in€his€lane,€to€be€stopped€after€Trooper€Parsley€concluded€hisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðencounter€with€McLain,€our€inquiry€would€be€ended,€since€there€would€be€no€doubt€that€he€wouldÐ )à$( Ðbe€entitled€to€the€suppression€of€evidence€obtained€as€the€result€of€a€seizure€at€an€unlawfulÐ |*Ì%) Ðroadblock.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Keithóó,€978€S.W.2d€861,€865€(Tenn.€1998).€€€However,€the€defendant€droveÐ h+¸&* Ðonto€the€paved€shoulder€to€pass€on€the€right€the€vehicle€immediately€in€front€of€him€before€pullingÐ ° Ðback€into€the€lane.€€Therefore,€we€must€next€consider€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€thatÐ œì ÐTrooper€Parsley€lawfully€stopped€the€defendant€after€he€had€passed€on€the€right€the€Blazer€and€itsÐ ˆØ Ðtrailer€which€was€stopped€in€his€lane.׃#×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€à À à€Ð tÄ Ðà@ìì*ìàò òˆÌà  àó óIn€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€21,€88€S.€Ct.€1868,€1880,€20€L.€Ed.2d€889,€the€United€StatesÐ L œ ÐSupreme€Court€held€that€a€law€enforcement€officer€may€conduct€a€brief,€investigatory€stop€of€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðindividual€if€the€officer€has€a€reasonable€suspicion,€based€on€specific€and€articulable€facts,€ofÐ $ t Ðcriminal€activity€on€the€part€of€the€individual.€€Under€the€òòTerróóy€rationale,€an€officer€may€stop€andÐ  ` Ðdetain€a€vehicle€based€on€the€reasonable€suspicion€that€one€of€its€occupants€is€either€engaged€in,€orÐ ü L  Ðabout€to€be€engaged€in,€criminal€activity.€€òòOrnelas€v.€United€Statesóó,€517€U.S.€690,€693,€116€S.€Ct.Ð è 8  Ð1657,€1662,€134€L.€Ed.€2d€911€(1996);€òòState€v.€Simpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€776,€780€(Tenn.€1998);Ð Ô$  ÐòòVineyardóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€734.€€Reasonable€suspicion€is€an€objective€standard,€and€must€beÐ À  Ðdetermined€from€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Cortezóó,€449€U.S.€411,€417„18,Ð ¬ü  Ð101€S.€Ct.€690,€695,€66€L.€Ed.€2d€621€(1981);€òòOrnelasóó,€517€U.S.€at€696,€116€S.€Ct.€at€1661„62.€€Ð ˜è  Ðð ðBased€upon€that€whole€picture€the€detaining€officers€must€have€a€particularized€and€objective€basisÐ „Ô  Ðfor€suspecting€the€particular€person€stopped€of€criminal€activity.ðð€€òòCortezóó,€449€U.S.€at€417„18,€101Ð pÀ ÐS.€Ct.€at€695.€€Reasonable€suspicion€will€be€found€to€exist€only€when€ð ðthe€events€which€occurredÐ \¬ Ðleading€up€to€the€stopðð€would€cause€an€ð ðobjectively€reasonable€police€officerðð€to€suspect€criminalÐ H˜ Ðactivity€on€the€part€of€the€individual€stopped.€€òòOrnelasóó,€517€U.S.€at€696,€116€S.€Ct.€at€1661„62.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌò òó óà  àò òó óThe€State€argues€that€the€defendantððs€reckless€manner€of€driving€around€the€Blazer€providedÐ  \ ÐTrooper€Parsley€with€ð ðmore€than€reasonable€suspicionðð€for€the€stop.€€We€agree€that€the€observationÐ øH Ðof€a€traffic€violation,€such€as€reckless€driving,€would€have€given€Trooper€Parsley€not€only€reasonableÐ ä4 Ðsuspicion,€but€€probable€cause,€to€stop€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòWhren€v.€United€Statesóó,€517€U.S.€806,Ð Ð  Ð817,€116€S.€€Ct.€1769,€1776,€135€L.€Ed.€2d€89€(1996)€(citations€omitted)€(noting€that€traffic€violationsÐ ¼  Ðprovide€probable€cause€for€a€stop).€€ð ðAs€a€general€matter,€the€decision€to€stop€an€automobile€isÐ ¨ø Ðreasonable€where€the€police€have€probable€cause€to€believe€that€a€traffic€violation€has€occurred.ðð€Ð ”ä ÐòòId.óó€at€810,€116€S.€Ct.€at€1772€(citations€omitted).€€The€descriptions€were€vastly€differing€as€to€theÐ €Ð Ðmanner€in€which€the€defendant€passed€to€the€right€the€pontoon€boat,€pulled€by€the€Blazer,€whichÐ l¼ Ðwere€stopped€in€his€lane.€€The€photographs€of€the€area€show€that€the€shoulder€adjacent€to€the€spotÐ X ¨ Ðwhere€the€Blazer€was€stopped€is€paved€and€somewhat€wider€than€the€lane€itself.€€Portions€of€theÐ D!” Ðsurface€of€the€paved€right€shoulder€appear€to€have€dirt€and€loose€gravel€on€them.€€Paul€MichaelÐ 0"€  ÐMcLain,€the€driver€of€the€Blazer,€testified€at€the€trial€that,€as€the€defendantððs€van€came€abreast€of€hisÐ #l! Ðvehicle,€the€van€was€proceeding€ð ð[v]ery€slow.€€Very€slowly,€less€than€five€miles€an€hour.ðð€He€saidÐ $X" Ðthat€the€van€then€stopped€about€thirty€feet€in€front€of€his€vehicle.€€Additionally,€he€had€testified€atÐ ô$D # Ðthe€motion€to€suppress€that€the€defendantððs€vehicle€was€neither€swerving€nor€veering€and€agreed€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðit€was€not€ð ðkicking€up€a€cloud€of€dust€and€rocks€and€gravel.ðð€€During€the€motion€to€suppress,€he€alsoÐ Ì&"% Ðsaid€that€he€did€not€see€the€defendantððs€van€come€close€to€hitting€another€car.€€Randy€Reynolds,Ð ° Ðsitting€in€the€right€front€seat€of€the€Blazer,€agreed€that€the€van€was€going€ð ð[f]our€or€five€mile[s]€anÐ œì Ðhourðð€when€he€first€saw€it,€and€that€he€did€not€notice€if€it€was€kicking€up€ð ðdust€and€rocks.ðð€€At€theÐ ˆØ Ðmotion€to€suppress,€he€had€also€testified€that,€as€far€as€he€knew,€€the€defendantððs€van€had€not€comeÐ tÄ Ðclose€to€striking€either€the€Blazer€or€another€vehicle.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àIn€contrast€to€the€testimony€of€the€driver€and€passenger€of€the€Blazer,€Trooper€ParsleyÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestified€at€the€motion€to€suppress€that€he€heard€ð ðgravel€being€kicked€up,ðð€and,€looking€up,€saw€theÐ $ t Ðdefendantððs€van€coming€around€the€right€side€of€the€Blazer,€almost€striking€a€vehicle€parked€on€theÐ  ` Ðshoulder€in€front€of€the€Blazer,€and€then€reentering€the€lane€of€traffic€in€front€of€the€Blazer.€€HeÐ ü L  Ðestimated€the€speed€of€the€van€was€ð ð25€to€30€miles€per€hour,€not€above€the€speed€limit,€but€aroundÐ è 8  Ðthe€speed€limit€or€right€at€it.ðð€€He€said€that€the€van€was€being€operated€in€a€manner€which€wasÐ Ô$  Ðð ðunsafe€for€the€conditions€at€the€time€we€were€there€at€the€roadblock.ðð€Ð À  ÐÌà  àAfter€hearing€the€testimony€at€the€motion€to€suppress,€the€trial€court€concluded,€apparentlyÐ ˜è  Ðboth€factually€and€legally,€that€the€State€had€failed€to€make€a€case€against€the€defendant€for€recklessÐ „Ô  Ðdriving.€€Resolving€the€conflicting€testimony€as€to€the€defendantððs€speed€and€whether€he€nearlyÐ pÀ Ðstruck€another€vehicle€in€passing€the€Blazer€on€the€right,€the€trial€court,€as€we€understand€its€findings,€Ð \¬ Ðrejected€the€officerððs€testimony€and€accredited€the€defense€proof€that€the€act€of€passing€the€Blazer,Ð H˜ Ðand€the€manner€in€which€the€defendant€did€so,€did€not€constitute€reckless€driving.€€Applying€theÐ 4„ Ðappropriate€standard€of€review,€we€conclude€that€since,€in€this€regard,€ð ðthe€greater€weight€of€theÐ  p Ðevidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€those€findings€shall€be€upheld.ðð€€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€atÐ  \ Ð23.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€determining€that€the€defendantððs€actions€inÐ øH Ðdriving€onto€the€shoulder€to€pass€the€Blazer€on€the€right€did€not€provide€either€probable€cause€orÐ ä4 Ðreasonable€suspicion€for€stopping€his€vehicle.€€€Ð Ð  Ðò òó óòòóóÌà  àIn€addition€to€arguing€that€the€defendantððs€manner€of€driving€was€reckless,€the€prosecutorÐ ¨ø Ðargued€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€in€passing€the€Blazer€on€the€shoulder,€the€defendant€violatedÐ ”ä Ðthe€statute€requiring€motorists€to€drive€within€the€clearly€marked€lanes€of€traffic.€€This€statuteÐ €Ð Ðprovides,€in€pertinent€part:€€Ð l¼ ЀÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òDriving€on€roadways€laned€for€traffic.ð!ðó óWhenever€any€roadway€hasÐ D!” Ðbeen€divided€into€two€(2)€or€more€clearly€marked€lanes€for€traffic,€theÐ 4"„  Ðfollowing€rules,€in€addition€to€all€others€consistent€herewith,€shallÐ  #p! Ðapply:Ð $\"` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ à(1)€A€vehicle€shall€be€driven€as€nearly€as€practicable€entirelyÐ ä%4!$ Ðwithin€a€single€lane€and€shall€not€be€moved€from€such€lane€until€theÐ Ð& "% Ðdriver€has€first€ascertained€that€such€movement€can€be€made€withÐ ¼' #& Ðsafety[.]Ш(ø#'` x` x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„8„123(1)€(1998).€€€Ð €*Ð%) ÐÐ l+¼&* Ðà  àThe€prosecutor€also€referred€the€trial€court€to€the€statute€which€permits€passing€on€the€rightÐ ° Ðonly€under€limited€conditions:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òWhen€overtaking€on€the€right€is€permitted.ð!ðó ó(a)€The€driver€of€aÐ tÄ Ðvehicle€may€overtake€and€pass€upon€the€right€of€another€vehicle€onlyÐ d´ Ðunder€the€following€conditions:€ÐP  ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8Œ ` x` xà(1)€When€the€vehicle€overtaken€is€making€or€about€to€make€aÐ ( x Ðleft€turn;Ð dŒ LŒ L ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8Œ ` x` xà(2)€Upon€a€street€or€highway€with€unobstructed€pavement€notÐ ì <  Ðoccupied€by€parked€vehicles€of€sufficient€width€for€two€(2)€orÐ Ø(  Ðmore€lines€of€moving€vehicles€in€each€direction;€and€ÐÄ Œ LŒ L ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8Œ ` x` xà(3)€Upon€a€one„way€street,€or€upon€any€roadway€on€whichÐ œì  Ðtraffic€is€restricted€to€one€(1)€direction€of€movement,€whereÐ ˆØ  Ðthe€roadway€is€free€from€obstructions€and€of€sufficient€widthÐ tÄ Ðfor€two€(2)€or€more€lines€of€moving€vehicles.Ð`°Œ LŒ L ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(b)€The€driver€of€a€vehicle€may€overtake€and€pass€another€vehicleÐ 8ˆ Ðupon€the€right€only€under€such€conditions€permitting€such€movementÐ $t Ðin€safety.€€In€no€event€shall€such€movement€be€made€by€driving€offÐ ` Ðthe€pavement€or€main„traveled€portion€of€the€roadway.ÐüL` x` x ЀÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„8„118€(1998).€€The€defendant€responded€by€advising€the€trial€court€that€theÐ Ô$ Ðstatute€had€been€interpreted€to€allow€travel€on€the€shoulder.׃)×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Ð À ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€did€not€violate€any€traffic€laws€by€passing€on€theÐ ˜è Ðright.€€We€agree.€€The€defendant€did€not€travel€for€any€substantial€distance€or€period€of€time€outsideÐ „Ô Ðhis€lane€of€traffic,€and€quite€obviously€believed€that€it€would€be€safer€to€pass€on€the€right€than€on€theÐ pÀ Ðleft,€given€the€sharp€curve€in€the€road€ahead.€€€He€testified€that€he€checked€to€see€if€the€way€wasÐ \ ¬ Ðclear,€and€proceeded€slowly€and€cautiously€around€the€stopped€vehicle€and€boat.€€The€pavedÐ H!˜ Ðshoulder,€which€was€at€least€ten€feet€wide,€provided€ample€room€for€him€to€maneuver,€and€there€wereÐ 4"„  Ðno€parked€vehicles€impeding€his€path.׃* ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€defendant€was€immediately€behind€the€Blazer€and€boat,Ð  #p! Ðand€nothing€in€the€evidence€indicates€that€there€were€any€other€vehicles€stopped€behind€him.€€Thus,Ð  $\" Ðthis€was€not€the€case€of€a€motorist€attempting€to€get€around€backed€up€traffic€by€traveling€on€theÐ ° Ðshoulder,€while€the€rest€of€the€motorists€waited€in€the€lane.€€Instead,€the€defendant€utilized€theÐ œì Ðshoulder€only€for€the€length€of€time€necessary€to€get€around€what€he€believed€to€be€a€vehicle€that€hadÐ ˆØ Ðbeen€involved€in€an€accident.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€defendant€did€not€violate€thisÐ tÄ Ðstatute€by€driving€onto€the€shoulder€to€pass€on€the€right€the€vehicle€stopped€in€his€lane€of€traffic.Ð `° ÐÌà  àNext,€we€consider€whether€the€defendantððs€action€in€bypassing€the€roadblock€was€sufficientÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€create€reasonable€suspicion€for€the€stop.€€In€òòState€v.€Binionóó,€900€S.W.2d€702,€705€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð $ t ÐApp.€1994),€this€court€concluded€that€a€motoristððs€attempts€to€avoid€a€roadblock€may€give€rise€to€aÐ  ` Ðreasonable€suspicion€of€criminal€activity.òòóó׃&×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€recognized,€however,€that€a€determination€of€whetherÐ ü L  Ðreasonable€suspicion€exists€is€necessarily€fact„specific,€requiring€a€case„by„case€analysis:Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àWhether€reasonable€suspicion€exists€must€be€determined€from€theÐ À  Ðtotality€of€circumstances€on€a€case€by€case€basis.€€Among€the€factorsÐ ¬ü  Ðto€be€considered€is€òòwhether€objective€evidence€indicates€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðmotorist€was€attempting€toóó€òòevade€arrest€or€detectionóó.€€Such€evidenceÐ „Ô  Ðmay€include€the€distance€the€motorist€was€from€the€roadblock€whenÐ pÀ Ðthe€turn„off€or€U„turn€was€made,€òòwhether€the€motorist€was€able€to€seeÐ \¬ Ðthe€roadblock€before€the€motorist€took€evasive€actionóó,€and€the€mannerÐ H˜ Ðin€which€the€motorist€operates€his€or€her€automobile€in€making€theÐ 4„ Ðevasive€action.€€Other€factors€to€be€considered€are€the€arrestingÐ  p Ðofficerððs€experience€and€any€òòother€circumstances€which€wouldÐ  \ Ðindicate€the€driver€was€intentionally€avoiding€the€roadblock€to€evadeÐ øH Ðarrest€or€detection.€óóÐä4` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€706€(emphasis€added).€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àAll€the€evidence€in€this€case€supports€the€conclusion€that€the€defendant€was€not€attemptingÐ ”ä Ðto€avoid€€arrest€or€detection€by€driving€around€the€Blazer,€and€was€not€aware€that€he€was€approachingÐ €Ð Ða€roadblock.€€The€roadblock€had€not€been€publicized,€no€warning€signs€or€traffic€cones€were€erected,Ð l¼ Ðand€both€troopers€were€invisible€to€the€defendant€as€he€drove€up€behind€the€wide,€tarp„coveredÐ X ¨ Ðpontoon€boat.€€Trooper€Parsley€admitted€that€it€would€have€been€possible€for€a€motorist€to€mistakeÐ D!” Ðthe€roadblock€for€the€scene€of€an€accident.€€Furthermore,€had€the€defendant€been€attempting€to€evadeÐ 0"€  Ðarrest,€it€is€unlikely€that€he€would€have€driven€in€a€direction€that€took€him€toward€the€patrol€cars.€Ð ° ÐUnder€the€unique€circumstances€of€this€case,€therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€defendantððs€action€inÐ œì Ðdriving€around€the€roadblock€did€not€provide€reasonable€suspicion€to€justify€an€investigative€stopÐ ˆØ Ðof€his€vehicle.€ò òÐ tÄ Ðà@ìì*ìàó óˆÌ€à  àThe€trial€court€also€found€that€the€stop€was€lawful€based€on€the€statute€that€ð ðwhen€blue€lightsÐ L œ Ðare€running,€the€law€enforcement€officer€is€running€whatever€process€on€the€road,€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€trialÐ 8 ˆ Ðcourt€did€not€cite€the€specific€code€section,€but€we€believe€that€it€was€referring€to€the€following:€Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òObedience€to€police€officers.ð!ðó ó(a)€No€person€shall€willfully€fail€orÐ ü L  Ðrefuse€to€comply€with€any€lawful€order€or€direction€of€any€policeÐ ì <  Ðofficer€invested€by€law€with€authority€to€direct,€control,€or€regulateÐ Ø(  Ðtraffic.ÐÄ ` x` x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„8„104€(1998).Ð œì  ÐÌà  àAlthough€this€statute€may€authorize€a€state€trooper€to€command€a€motorist€to€stop€as€part€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€direction€or€regulation€of€traffic,€it€does€not€authorize€the€trooper€to€request€the€motoristððsÐ `° Ðdriverððs€license,€in€the€absence€of€probable€cause€of€a€traffic€violation€or€reasonable€suspicion€ofÐ Lœ Ðcriminal€activity.€€To€allow€a€trooper€to€demand€a€motoristððs€driverððs€license€based€solely€on€a€stateÐ 8ˆ Ðstatute€authorizing€troopers€to€direct€traffic€would€undercut€the€protections€against€unreasonableÐ $t Ðsearch€and€seizure€afforded€by€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions,€as€well€as€the€holdingsÐ ` Ðof€òòDowneyóó€and€òòHicksóó.Ð üL ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€Trooper€Parsley€had€neither€probable€cause€nor€reasonableÐ Ô$ Ðsuspicion€to€make€an€investigatory€stop.Ð À ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÐ ˜è Ðó óÌÓ–ûÓà  àAs€his€second€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€sustain€hisÐ pÀ Ðconviction€for€the€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€55„50„351.€Although€ourÐ \ ¬ Ðdetermination€as€to€the€defendantððs€first€issue€makes€this€claim€moot,€we€will€review€it€because€ofÐ H!˜ Ðthe€possibility€of€further€appellate€review.Ð 4"„  ÐÌà  àIn€considering€this€issue,€we€apply€the€familiar€rule€that€where€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÐ  $\" Ðevidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€of€the€reviewing€court€is€€ð ðwhether,€after€viewing€theÐ ø$H # Ðevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€foundÐ ä%4!$ Ðthe€essential€elements€of€the€offense€charged€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443Ð Ð& "% ÐU.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€560€(1979).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2dÐ ¼' #& Ð185,€190„92€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€835€S.W.2d€600,€604€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)òòóó;€Tenn.Ð ¨(ø#' ÐR.€App.€P.€13(e)€(ð ðFindings€of€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€setÐ ”)ä$( Ðaside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€aÐ €*Ð%) Ðreasonable€doubt.ðð).€€All€questions€involving€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€beÐ l+¼&* Ðgiven€the€evidence,€and€all€factual€issues€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)òòóó.€€ð ðA€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,Ð œì Ðaccredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theoryÐ ˆØ Ðof€the€State.ðð€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€Our€supreme€court€stated€theÐ tÄ Ðrationale€for€this€rule:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis€well„settled€rule€rests€on€a€sound€foundation.€€The€trial€judge€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€jury€see€the€witnesses€face€to€face,€hear€their€testimony€andÐ $ t Ðobserve€their€demeanor€on€the€stand.€€Thus€the€trial€judge€and€jury€areÐ  ` Ðthe€primary€instrumentality€of€justice€to€determine€the€weight€andÐ ü L  Ðcredibility€to€be€given€to€the€testimony€of€witnesses.€€In€the€trialÐ è 8  Ðforum€alone€is€there€human€atmosphere€and€the€totality€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðevidence€cannot€be€reproduced€with€a€written€record€in€this€Court.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌòòBolin€v.€Stateóó,€219€Tenn.€4,€11,€405€S.W.2d€768,€771€(1966)€(citing€òòCarroll€v.€Stateóó,€212€Tenn.€464,Ð ˜è  Ð370€S.W.2d€523€(1963)).€€A€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€aÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant€is€initially€cloaked€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal,€a€convictedÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639Ð \¬ ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).Ô‡X ‰XXX ‰Ô€When€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€was€resolved€by€the€jury€inÐ H˜ Ðfavor€of€the€State,€the€appellate€court€ð ðmay€not€reconsider€the€juryððs€credibility€assessments.ðð€òòStateÐ 4„ Ðv.€Carruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€516,€558€(Tenn.€2000),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€___U.S.€___,€121€S.€Ct.€2600€(2001).Ð  p ÐÌà  àApplying€these€principles,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€for€a€reasonable€juryÐ øH Ðto€find€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Trooper€Parsley€testified€at€trial€that€heÐ ä4 Ðasked€three€times€to€see€the€defendantððs€driverððs€license,€but€the€defendant€refused€each€time€to€showÐ Ð  Ðit€to€him.€€This€testimony€was€arguably€supported,€at€least€in€part,€by€testimony€of€Ronald€Lackey,Ð ¼  Ða€K„9€training€coordinator€who€had€stopped€at€the€roadblock€in€order€to€talk€with€Trooper€Shearl.€Ð ¨ø ÐAlthough€Lackey€did€not€testify€to€hearing€Trooper€Parsley€ask€for€the€defendantððs€license,€he€didÐ ”ä Ðsay€that€he€heard€Trooper€Parsley€ask€the€defendant€his€name,€and€that€the€defendant€replied€withÐ €Ð Ðð ðWhatððs€your€damn€name?ðð€€The€defendant,€on€the€other€hand,€testified€that€the€first€time€he€wasÐ l¼ Ðasked€for€his€driverððs€license€was€when€he€was€already€handcuffed€and€in€the€back€of€the€patrol€car,Ð X ¨ Ðand€that€he€told€Trooper€Parsley€his€license€was€in€his€wallet€in€his€right€rear€pocket.€€The€juryÐ D!” Ðobviously€resolved€these€discrepancies€in€the€proof€in€favor€of€the€State,€and€this€court€may€notÐ 0"€  Ðreconsider€that€assessment.€Ô#†X ‰XXX ‰Û#ÔÔ‡X ‰XXX ‰ÔÐ #l! ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€defendantððs€claim€that€the€indictment€was€deficient€because€it€failed€to€track€theÐ ô$D # Ðstatutory€language€by€omitting€the€claim€that€the€defendant€did€not€display€his€license€upon€demand,Ð à%0!$ Ðwe€note€that€the€indictment€did€allege€that€the€defendant€acted€ð ðin€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ Ì&"% Ð55„50„351.ðð€€In€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€988€S.W.2d€145€(Tenn.€1999),€denying€the€defendant's€challenge€toÐ ¸'#& Ða€felony€murder€indictment€which€referred€to€the€appropriate€proscriptive€statute€but€failed€to€allegeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€the€killings€were€reckless,€our€supreme€court€stated:Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐÓ6°,XƒXA ¸ —X°,XƒXŒ –X6Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà A àIn€this€case,€both€felony€murder€indictments€referenced€theÐ ° Ðâ âappropriate€statute.€€This€reference€provided€notice€to€the€defendantÐ œì Ðof€the€applicable€mens€rea,€notice€of€the€offense€upon€which€to€enterÐ ˆØ Ðthe€judgment,€and€protection€from€subsequent€prosecution€on€theÐ tÄ Ðsame€offense.€€The€indictment€also€meets€the€requirements€of€Tenn.Ð `° ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40-13-202.€€The€language€of€the€felony€murder€countsÐ L œ Ðwas€legally€sufficient€under€òòRuffóó€[978€S.W.2d€95€(Tenn.€1998)].Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€149€(citations€omitted).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that,€by€its€reference€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€55„50„Ð è 8  Ð351,€count€two€of€the€indictment€was€sufficient€to€put€the€defendant€on€notice€as€to€what€he€wasÐ Ô$  Ðalleged€to€have€done€and€to€prevent€reprosecution€for€the€same€offense.Ð À  ÐÔ#†X ‰XXX ‰Õ#ÔÌà  àà ` àà@FF%ìàòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing€reasoning€and€analysis,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€conviction€andÐ pÀ Ðdismiss€the€charge.€€The€matter€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ð \¬ ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà A àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà A àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE