ÿWPC\" …„ù3µ‰þy í‡è0ï”wßš=éøåü®©·ŒïPŒàjê“Ïi…q TgÙ.îRðþO8'.e3.YEkú q½ºérTø·4ã¤oKG…Tlõ¾I±j»¬%šà>S)µ|7 V–Dc$<¼{ž ëzÛ Šˆ¹IÂq‹ö|-{,7(d:Ÿ“nSô“ /àÕò‹žRÕ¼ïêÝmÂ[ó‡>4äz-Ç=’ÇÑAÉÆáVÝmÏW)LJÐtC@뛘'!qƒöŒ£œmþÐbû~Pº ¤çÿ CyÈæ'D…žÃ|„¥vë˜j¬ø‰ÃéóWœ#ŽNJ3ÐLÑ á;ÿ ¾Ïbµ^nD¤3å>^ÐÍ!0?f#™ùzÍ&ìS®Æù8MÑeq„„gL¨é£µj-ˆÜF yÕÚüúNg/G.ÄÄÑÄÝFŠ7ýy3Ï ÞbÏûÃJ„ýÙÙÊ/i*ZÙÅq/{ÇѱCý´ø¿d¥b$Ò;…} &bFIµU ŠHö€¢z롶˲,"Š‘½!¢œqÃuqã"EUH#%òÄó#ŽúT Ÿ] Ó…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ LÍ U: bS w@[ 4› ¯ 0 ƾ 0D„ UNÈ ì ÓnÕíCU :0ìjU:Vym U:ví°U:×èßU:ÇèU:é B# # # # # # # # # # # D3@ @ @ 0Ds s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s AO· Æ!! 0DÌ! D/" B?"˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- )*D+D,D-D1 e2U3D4Ó€>uM%3|x@(v(2?À$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XzùXXXÔÔ€ôE»ôXXzùÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular âÝ ƒ $á$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XºÈXXXÔÔ€ô†ôXXºÈÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Apparently,€the€hearse€was€not€traveling€with€the€ð ðprocession,ðð€but€was€traveling€approximatelyÐ `  Ðthirty€(30)€minutes€behind€the€motorcycles.€ò òó ó€€Eventually€the€hearse€arrived,€and€Officer€Bean€was€allowedÐ  ¾ Ðto€escort€the€hearse€through€the€roadblock€to€the€€burial€site.€ò òó ó ÉÝ ƒ $á$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XºÈXXXÔÔ€ô†ôXXºÈÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55-9-302(a)€provides:Ð `  ÐÌà8 ` àThe€driver€of€a€motorcycle,€motorized€bicycle€as€defined€in€chapter€8€of€this€title,€orÏmotor-driven€cycle€and€any€passenger€thereon€shall€be€required€to€wear€a€crash€helmet€ofÏa€type€approved€by€the€commissioner€of€safety. dÝ ƒ $á$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XºÈXXXÔÔ€ô†ôXXºÈÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€General€Assembly€of€Tennessee€has€made€a€legislative€determination€that€motorcycleÐ `  Ðhelmet€laws€significantly€promote€public€roadway€safety.€€Since€we€have€concluded€that€this€determinationÏdoes€not€implicate€constitutionally€protected€privacy€or€free€speech€concerns,€this€determination€was€theÏprerogative€of€the€legislature.€€Any€argument€regarding€the€efficacy€of€helmet€laws€must€therefore€beÏaddressed€to€the€General€Assembly. ãÝ ƒ $á$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XºÈXXXÔÔ€ô†ôXXºÈÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Our€Supreme€Court€has€held€that,€in€certain€contexts,€Article€I,€ðð€19€of€the€TennesseeÐ `  ÐConstitution€is€ð ðcoextensive€with€the€scope€of€the€First€Amendment€to€the€U.S.€Constitution.ðð€€òòDavis„KiddÐ  ¾ ÐBooksellers,€Inc.€v.€McWherteróó,€866€S.W.2d€520,€525€(Tenn.€1993)€(obscenity).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular âÝ ƒ $á$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X T XXXÔÔ€ô¥«ô XX TÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Apparently,€the€hearse€was€not€traveling€with€the€ð ðprocession,ðð€but€was€traveling€approximatelyÐ `  Ðthirty€(30)€minutes€behind€the€motorcycles.€ò òó ó€€Eventually€the€hearse€arrived,€and€Officer€Bean€was€allowedÐ  ¾ Ðto€escort€the€hearse€through€the€roadblock€to€the€€burial€site.€ò òó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular oÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55-9-302(a)€provides:Ð `  ÐÌà8  àThe€driver€of€a€motorcycle,€motorized€bicycle€as€defined€in€chapter€8€of€this€title,Ïor€motor-driven€cycle€and€any€passenger€thereon€shall€be€required€to€wear€a€crashÏhelmet€of€a€type€approved€by€the€commissioner€of€safety. cÝ ƒ $á$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X T XXXÔÔ€ô¥«ô XX TÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€General€Assembly€of€Tennessee€has€made€a€legislative€determination€that€motorcycleÐ `  Ðhelmet€laws€significantly€promote€purlic€roadway€safety.€€Since€we€have€concluded€that€this€determinationÏdoes€not€implicate€constitutionally€protected€privacy€or€free€speech€concerns,€this€determination€was€theÏperogative€of€the€legislature.€€Any€argument€regarding€the€efficacy€of€helmet€laws€must€therefore€beÏaddressed€to€the€General€Assembly.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ãÝ ƒ $á$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X T XXXÔÔ€ô¥«ô XX TÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Our€Supreme€Court€has€held€that,€in€certain€contexts,€Article€I,€ðð€19€of€the€TennesseeÐ `  ÐConstitution€is€ð ðcoextensive€with€the€scope€of€the€First€Amendment€to€the€U.S.€Constitution.ðð€€òòDavis„KiddÐ  ¾ ÐBooksellers,€Inc.€v.€McWherteróó,€866€S.W.2d€520,€525€(Tenn.€1993)€(obscenity).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÞÔ€XzùXXXÔÔ€D XXzùÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XzùX DÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€27,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÞÔ€XzùXXXÔÔ€D XXzùÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XzùX DÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€23,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ4ññ1ñ›ñ1ññ4ñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ŠÒÆŠXXÔÔ€ŠðŠŠŠÒÆÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€–yXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñ>ññ4ñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rßñ4ññ>ññ>ñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rßñ>ññ4ñ›ñ4ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌJULY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9709„CR„00415Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àPUTNAM€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€JOHN€TURNBULLó óÐ Xø  Ðò òGARY€VAUGHN,€et€al.,ó óà h àà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellants.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌJOHN€E.€HERBISONà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ ( È Ð2016€Eighth€Avenue€Southà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  !À ÐNashville,€TN€€37204à h àÐ "¸ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDARYL€J.€BRANDÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSenior€CounselÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBILL€GIBSONÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àLILLIE€ANN€SELLSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à145€South€Jefferson€AvenueÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCookeville,€TN€€38501ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  x5,-¯ ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„³õ„ŠŠðÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†ŠðŠ„„³õ #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÌñ*ñÌñ*ñÓ  ÓÓÓñ+ññ)ñÔ‡ Š"ÀŠŠŠ!wÔñ)ññ+ññ,ññ)ñÔ‡X T XŠŠ!wÔñ)ññ,ññ)ñÑ7€–yXdìXXdì7Ññ)ññ*ññ)ñà@øø+®àñ)ññ*ññ)ñò òòòñ)ññ*ññ)ñOPINIONñ)ññ*ññ)ñóóó óñ)ññ*ññ)ñÌÌñ)ññ*ññ)ñà ` àThe€appellants,€Gary€M.€Vaughn,€Harry€D.€Stewart,€Jo€Ann€Scarbrough,Ð ´ T ÐKenneth€L.€Reagan,€William€M.€Ransom,€Julie€C.€Hileman,€Harold€H.€Hileman,ÏGeoffrey€Mark€Greely,€Roy€Howard€Elkins,€Kenneth€D.€Dyer,€Larry€K.€Dunn€andÏRobert€J.€Cunningham€were€convicted€by€a€Putnam€County€jury€of€violation€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„9„302,€the€ð ðmotorcycle€helmet€law.ðð€€Each€appellantÏreceived€a€fine€of€$5€as€his€or€her€sentence.€€On€appeal,€appellants€claim€thatÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„9„302€is€unconstitutional€as€it€(1)€interferes€with€theirÏconstitutionally€protected€privacy€right,€and€(2)€restricts€their€freedom€ofÏexpression€under€the€First€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€andÏArticle€I,€ðð€19€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Ten€(10)€of€the€appellants€alsoÏchallenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€After€a€thorough€review€ofÏthe€record€before€this€Court,€we€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.ÌÌà@II,®àò òòòFACTSó óóóˆÐ Ô't ÐÌà ` àOn€July€19,€1996,€Officer€Rick€Smith€of€the€Putnam€County€Sheriffððs€OfficeÏwas€assigned€to€escort€the€procession€for€the€funeral€of€Horton€Swift.€€TheÏdecedent€was€formerly€a€member€of€the€motorcycle€organization,€ConcernedÏMotorcyclists€of€Tennessee,€American€Bikers€Association€Toward€EducationÏ(CMT/ABATE),€and€many€members€of€the€organization€attended€his€funeral.€€Ìà ` àShortly€after€Officer€Smith€arrived€at€the€funeral€home,€he€was€approachedÏby€Debbie€Daniels,€who€asked€permission€for€the€cyclists€to€ride€in€the€processionÏwithout€their€helmets.€€Officer€Smith€informed€Daniels€that€he€did€not€have€theÐ T9ô/1 Ðauthority€to€grant€such€permission,€and€if€the€cyclists€chose€to€ride€theirÏmotorcycles€without€a€helmet,€they€would€be€violating€the€law.€€€A€short€time€later,Ïappellant€Gary€Vaughn,€along€with€approximately€eight€(8)€other€people,Ïapproached€Officer€Smith€with€a€similar€request.€Once€again,€Smith€deniedÏpermission.€ò ò€ó óOfficer€Smith€subsequently€observed€various€members€of€theÐ  À Ðorganization€gathering€helmets€and€placing€them€in€a€vehicle.€€Realizing€that€heÏcould€not€control€the€impending€situation,€Smith€notified€his€dispatcher€that€heÏwas€leaving€the€funeral€home€and€would€not€be€escorting€the€procession.€Ìà ` àOfficer€Kenneth€Bean€of€the€Jackson€County€Sheriffððs€Department€was€aÏfriend€of€the€decedent€and€volunteered€to€assist€in€escorting€the€funeralÏprocession.€€€Officer€Smith€notified€Bean€that€he€was€leaving€the€funeral€home,Ïand€Bean€decided€that€he€would€lead€the€procession€alone.€€Ìà ` àMeanwhile,€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€had€set€up€an€ð ðenforcementððÏroadblock€on€Route€135€North,€where€the€funeral€procession€was€scheduled€toÏpass€through.€The€patrolmen€assigned€to€the€roadblock€were€unaware€that€theÏprocession€would€be€traveling€through€the€roadblock€area,€and€Officer€Bean€hadÏno€knowledge€of€the€scheduled€roadblock.Ìà ` àTroopers€David€Bush€and€Milburn€Rogers€observed€Officer€BeanÏapproaching,€followed€by€approximately€50€to€60€motorcycles.€€Only€four€(4)€toÏeight€(8)€of€the€cyclists€were€wearing€helmets.€€€The€patrolmen€diverted€theÏprocession€into€the€parking€lot€of€the€Smyrna€Church€of€Christ€and€began€issuingÏcitations.ñ1ñ׃×ñ1ññ1ñ׃×ñ1ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Due€to€the€excessive€number€of€cyclists,€additional€officers€wereÐ  2À(* Ðâ âcalled€in€to€assist.€Ð 4°*, Ðà ` àIn€issuing€the€citations,€each€officer€requested€the€cyclistððs€driverððs€licenseÏâ âand€registration,€compared€the€individual€with€his€or€her€driverððs€license€picture,Ïverified€that€the€information€on€the€license€and€registration€was€correct,€andÏobtained€the€cyclistððs€signature€on€the€citation.€€While€many€of€the€cyclistsÏvoluntarily€requested€the€citation,€each€officer€verified€that€a€cyclist€was€notÏwearing€a€helmet€before€issuing€a€citation.€€€The€officers€did€not€issue€citationsÏto€anyone€who€claimed€that€he€was€wearing€a€helmet€in€the€procession.€€BecauseÏthe€helmets€had€been€placed€in€a€vehicle€which€was€traveling€several€minutesÏbehind€the€procession,€the€officers€could€further€determine€whether€an€individualÏwas€riding€without€a€helmet€by€observing€whether€the€individual€had€a€helmet€inÏhis€or€her€possession.ò òÐ À` Ðà ` àó óPrior€to€trial,€appellants€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€their€indictments€on€theÐ °P Ðbasis€that€the€motorcycle€helmet€statute€is€unconstitutional.ñ1ñ׃×ñ1ññ1ñ׃×ñ1ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€At€the€hearing€onÐ   @ Ðthe€motion€to€dismiss,€Vaughn€testified€that€he€and€his€cohorts€wanted€to€ride€inÏthe€procession€without€their€helmets€as€a€sign€of€respect€for€the€deceased.€€UponÏthe€trial€courtððs€denial€of€appellantsðð€motion,€€appellantsðð€indictments€wereÏconsolidated€for€trial.Ìà ` àAt€trial,€appellants€Elkins,€Vaughn,€Cunningham€and€Harold€Hileman€wereÏidentified€as€riding€in€the€procession€without€a€helmet.€ò ò€ó óAlthough€the€officers€wereÐ @,à"$ Ðnot€able€to€specifically€identify€the€other€appellants€at€trial,€they€testified€that€theyÏverified€each€individualððs€identity€while€issuing€the€citation€by€a€comparison€of€theÏâ âindividual€and€his€or€her€respective€driverððs€license.€Ð  2À(* Ðà ` àThe€jury€found€the€appellants€guilty€of€violating€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„9„¼â â302.€€From€their€convictions,€appellants€bring€this€appeal€as€of€right.ÌÌà@˜ ˜ ®àò òòòCONSTITUTIONALITY€OF€TENN.€CODE€ANN.€ðð€55„9„302ó óóóˆÐ 0Ð ÐÌà ` àIn€their€first€issue,€appellants€claim€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„9„302€isÏunconstitutional€in€two€respects.€€Appellants€firstly€assert€that€the€statute€isÏunconstitutional€on€its€face€because€it€infringes€on€an€individualððs€right€to€privacyÏgrounded€in€the€federal€and€state€constitutionsðð€guarantees€of€personal€liberty.€ÏSecondly,€because€appellants€refused€to€wear€their€helmets€as€an€expression€ofÏrespect€for€the€deceased,€they€contend€that€the€statute€is€unconstitutional€as€itÏrestricts€their€freedom€of€expression€under€the€First€Amendment€to€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution€and€Article€I,€ðð€19€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€We€willÏconsider€both€of€these€arguments€in€turn.Ìà@ØØ$®àò òA.€€Right€to€Privacyó óˆÐ $0 Ðà ` àAppellants€argue€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„9„302€encroaches€upon€theirÏð ðfundamental€right€to€be€left€alone€òòvis„„visóó€the€State.ðð€€They€insist€that€theÐ €(   Ðdecision€to€wear€a€safety€helmet€should€be€a€personal€one,€and€ð ðpaternalisticÏlegislationðð€such€as€the€subject€statute€constitutes€an€ð ðunwarranted€governmentalÏintrusionðð€into€citizensðð€lives.Ìà ` àThe€right€to€privacy€is€a€fundamental€one,€which€is€embraced€in€the€notionsÏof€personal€liberty€guaranteed€by€both€federal€and€state€constitutions.€€òòSeeóóÐ 02Ð(* ÐòòGriswold€v.€Connecticutóó,€381€U.S.€479,€484„86,€85€S.Ct.€1678,€1682,€14€L.Ed.2dÐ  4À*, Ð510€(1965);€òòDavis€v.€Davisóó,€842€S.W.2d€588,€598€(Tenn.€1992).€€ð ð[T]he€conceptÐ 6°,. Ðof€liberty€protects€those€personal€rights€that€are€fundamental,€and€is€not€confinedÏto€the€specific€terms€of€the€Bill€of€Rights.ðð€€òòGriswold€v.€Connecticutóó,€381€U.S.€atÐ ð902 Ð486,€85€S.Ct.€at€1683€(Goldberg,€J.,€concurring).€€Under€the€TennesseeÏConstitution,€the€fundamental€right€to€privacy€has€been€upheld€in€circumstancesÏinvolving€parenting,€òòseeóó€òòSimmons€v.€Simmonsóó,€900€S.W.2d€682,€683€(Tenn.Ð @ à Ð1995);€òòIn€re€Adoption€of€Female€Childóó,€896€S.W.2d€546,€547„48€(Tenn.€1995);Ð 0Ð ÐòòNale€v.€Robertsonóó,€871€S.W.2d€674,€678€(Tenn.€1994);€òòHawk€v.€Hawkóó,€855Ð  À ÐS.W.2d€573,€577„78€(Tenn.€1993),€procreation,€òòseeóó€òòDavis€v.€Davisóó,€842€S.W.2dÐ °  Ðat€600,€and€consensual,€noncommercial€sexual€activity.€€òòSeeóó€òòCampbell€v.Ð    ÐSundquistóó,€926€S.W.2d€250,€262€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€Ð ð  Ðà ` àIn€òòArutanoff€v.€Metropolitan€Govððtóó,€448€S.W.2d€408€(Tenn.€1969),€theÐ à€ ÐSupreme€Court€was€presented€with€an€identical€issue,€i.e.,€the€constitutionalityÏof€the€then„existing€motorcycle€helmet€statute.€€The€Court€upheld€the€statute,Ïfinding€the€regulatory€measure€aimed€at€promoting€public€safety€to€be€aÏconstitutionally€valid€exercise€of€the€stateððs€police€power.€€òòId.óó€at€411„12.€€TheÐ   @ ÐCourt€further€rejected€the€defendantððs€contention€that€the€statute€violated€his€rightÏto€privacy€under€the€United€States€Constitution€on€the€basis€that€the€ð ðthe€conductÏregulated€occurs€in€a€public€arena€and€.€.€.€is€of€such€a€nature€as€to€affect€theÏsafety€of€the€numerous€motorcyclists€and€the€safety€of€the€public€generally.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ `(  Ðat€412.Ìà ` àWhile€appellants€acknowledge€that€the€holding€in€òòArutanoffóó€is€unfavorableÐ @,à"$ Ðto€their€position,€they€argue€that€òòArutanoffóó€was€decided€under€the€federalÐ 0.Ð$& Ðconstitution,€and€the€right€to€privacy€under€our€state€constitution€was€firstÏrecognized€many€years€after€that€decision.€€òòSeeóó€òòDavis€v.€Davisóó,€842€S.W.2d€atÐ 2°(* Ð599„600.€€Further,€because€the€right€to€privacy€under€state€law€is€much€broaderÏthan€that€under€federal€law,€they€maintain€that€the€ruling€in€òòArutanoffóó€isÐ ð5,. Ðâ âinconsequential.€€We€disagree.Ð à7€.0 Ðà ` àAppellants€are€correct€in€their€assertion€that€the€right€to€privacy€under€theÏâ âTennessee€Constitution€is€more€expansive€than€the€right€to€privacy€under€theÏUnited€States€Constitution.€€òòCampbell€v.€Sundquistóó,€926€S.W.2d€at€261;€òòsee€alsoóóÐ @ à ÐòòDavis€v.€Davisóó,€842€S.W.2d€at€600.€€However,€the€evolution€of€privacy€lawÐ 0Ð Ðtranspired€out€of€ð ðthe€need€to€protect€individuals€from€unwarranted€governmentalÏintrusion€into€matters€.€.€.€involving€òòintimate€questions€of€personal€and€familyÐ °  Ðconcern.óóðð€€òòDavisóó,€842€S.W.2d€at€600€(emphasis€added).€€Indeed,€althoughÐ    ÐTennessee€privacy€law€is€more€extensive€than€federal€privacy€law,€ð ðboth€bodiesÏof€law€have€drawn€distinctions€between€actions€which€are€committed€in€theÏprivacy€of€the€home€and€those€committed€in€public.ðð€€òòCampbell€v.€Sundquistóó,€926Ð Ðp ÐS.W.2d€at€262.Ìà ` àAppellants€recognize€that€a€public€roadway€is€the€ð ðquintessential€publicÏforum.ðð€€€The€decision€whether€to€wear€protective€headgear€while€operating€aÏmotorcycle€on€a€public€roadway€is€in€no€way€analogous€to€decisions€involvingÏparenting,€procreation€or€consensual,€noncommercial€sexual€activity.€€AppellantsÏhave€cited€no€Tennessee€authority€which€would€extend€a€privacy€right€to€conductÏoccurring€within€the€public€domain,€nor€is€this€Court€aware€of€any.€€We,€therefore,Ïagree€with€the€Court€in€òòArutanoffóó€that€the€statute€at€issue€does€not€fall€within€theÐ P*ð " Ðrubric€of€privacy€law.€€Furthermore,€protecting€the€safety€of€its€citizens€is€withinÏthe€stateððs€police€power,€and€the€regulation€at€issue€is€rationally€related€to€thatÏstate€interest.€€òòSeeóó€òòArutanoffóó,€448€S.W.2d€at€411„12;€òòState€v.€Sowderóó,€826Ð  0À&( ÐS.W.2d€924,€927€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà@$®àò òB.€€Freedom€of€Speechó óˆÐ ð5,. Ðà ` àAppellants€also€contend€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„9„302€isÏunconstitutional€in€its€application€in€that€they€declined€to€wear€helmets€in€theÐ à9€02 Ðprocession€as€a€sign€of€respect€for€the€deceased.€€Therefore,€they€urge€that€theÏstatute€impermissibly€infringes€on€their€constitutionally€guaranteed€freedom€ofÏexpression.Ìà ` àThe€First€Amendment€is€implicated€when€a€statute€regulates€conduct€whichÏhas€the€incidental€effect€of€burdening€expression.€€òòArcara€v.€Cloud€Books,€Inc.óó,Ð  À Ð478€U.S.€697,€702,€106€S.Ct.€3172,€3175,€92€L.Ed.2d€568€(1986).€€However,€notÏall€conduct€can€be€considered€ð ðspeechðð€under€the€First€Amendment€simplyÏbecause€the€person€engaging€in€the€conduct€ð ðintends€thereby€to€express€anÏidea.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€OððBrienóó,€391€U.S.€367,€376,€88€S.Ct.€1673,€1678,€20Ð à€ ÐL.Ed.2d€672€(1968).€€Appellants€claim€that€their€refusal€to€wear€helmets€in€theÏfuneral€procession€as€a€show€of€respect€for€the€deceased€was€communicativeÏconduct,€and€the€state€does€not€contest€this€assertion.€€We€will,€therefore,Ïassume€for€the€purposes€of€this€appeal€that€appellantsðð€conduct€was€sufficientlyÏexpressive€to€implicate€constitutional€principles€of€free€speech.€€òòSee€generallyóóÐ "0 ÐòòSpence€v.€Washingtonóó,€418€U.S.€405,€94€S.Ct.€2727,€41€L.Ed.2d€842€(1974).Ð €$  Ðà ` àEven€assuming€that€refusing€to€wear€a€helmet€as€a€symbol€of€respectÏconstituted€ð ðspeechðð€under€the€First€Amendment,€appellants€are€not€necessarilyÏentitled€to€relief.€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held:ÌÓÓà8 ` àwhen€ð ðspeechðð€and€ð ðnonspeechðð€elements€are€combined€in€theÏsame€course€of€conduct,€a€sufficiently€important€governmentalÏinterest€in€regulating€the€nonspeech€element€can€justify€incidentalÏlimitations€on€First€Amendment€freedoms.€.€.€a€governmentÏregulation€is€sufficiently€justified€if€it€is€within€the€constitutional€powerÏof€the€Government;€if€it€furthers€an€important€or€substantialÏgovernmental€interest;€if€the€governmental€interest€is€unrelated€toÏthe€suppression€of€free€expression;€and€if€the€incidental€restrictionÏon€alleged€First€Amendment€freedoms€is€no€greater€than€is€essentialÏto€the€furtherance€of€that€interest.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌâ âÓÓòòUnited€States€v.€OððBrienóó,€391€U.S.€at€376,€88€S.Ct.€at€1678„79.Ð è6ˆ-/ Ðà ` àApplying€the€four„part€òòOððBrienóó€test€to€the€present€facts,€it€is€clear€that€theÐ `  Ðâ âsubject€regulation€is€within€the€stateððs€police€power€to€protect€the€safety€of€itsÏcitizens.€€òòGaskin€v.€Stateóó,€490€S.W.2d€521,€525€(Tenn.€1973);€€òòArutanoffóó,€448Ð @ à ÐS.W.2d€at€411„12.€€Furthermore,€the€statute€serves€the€important€governmentalÏinterest€of€protecting€the€safety€of€motorcyclists€as€a€class,€as€well€as€otherÏmotorists€on€the€public€roadways.€€òòArutanoffóó,€448€S.W.2d€at€411„12.Ð °  Ðà ` àMoreover,€the€state€interest€of€protecting€the€safety€of€its€citizens€isÏunrelated€to€the€suppression€of€free€speech.€€Certainly,€it€is€beyond€dispute€thatÏthe€statute€requiring€helmets€is€content„neutral,€as€it€has€no€relation€to€speech€orÏother€forms€of€expressive€conduct,€nor€does€it€seek€to€suppress€expression€asÏits€œñ)ññ3ññ)ñprimary›ñ)ññ3ññ)ññ)ññ3ññ)ñ€ñ)ññ3ññ)ñpurpose.›Ìà ` àFinally,€the€incidental€restriction€on€appellantsðð€freedom€of€expression€is€noÏgreater€than€necessary€to€the€furtherance€of€the€state€interest.€€ð ð[A]n€incidentalÏburden€on€speech€is€no€greater€than€is€essential,€and€therefore€is€permissibleÏunder€òòOððBrienóó,€so€long€as€the€neutral€regulation€promotes€a€substantialÐ €$  Ðgovernmental€interest€that€would€be€achieved€less€effectively€absent€theÏregulation.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Albertinióó,€472€U.S.€675,€689,€105€S.Ct.€2897,€2906,Ð `(  Ð86€L.Ed.2d€536€(1985).€€The€state€interest€of€protecting€the€safety€of€motorcyclistsÏon€public€roadways€would€indeed€be€less€effective€without€a€regulation€requiringÏthe€cyclists€to€wear€protective€headgear.ñ1ñ׃×ñ1ññ1ñ׃×ñ1ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 0.Ð$& Ðà ` àIn€that€all€four€elements€of€òòOððBrienóó€have€been€satisfied,€we€conclude€thatÐ  0À&( Ðâ âappellantsðð€rights€to€free€expression€were€not€violated€by€their€convictions€underÐ 2°(* ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„9„302.ñ1ñ׃×ñ1ññ1ñ׃×ñ1ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòClark€v.€Community€for€Creative€Non„Ð `  Ðâ âViolenceóó,€104€S.Ct.€3065,€104€S.Ct.€3065,€82L.Ed.2d221€(1984).Ð P ð Ðà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@îî!®àò òòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óóóˆÐ  À ÐÌà ` àIn€their€final€issue,€ten€(10)€of€the€appellants€assert€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€them€guilty€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€Primarily,€they€argue€that€the€state€did€not€present€sufficient€evidence€ofÏidentity€at€trial.€€Appellants€Harold€Hileman€and€Cunningham€concede€that€theÏevidence€is€sufficient€to€support€their€convictions.Ìà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÏdoes€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÐ ° P Ð832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€A€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€theÏstate's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,Ð $0 Ð885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.Ð €&  Ð1992).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€and€all€legitimate€or€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÏtherefrom.€€òòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€803;€€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€75.€€€This€CourtÐ P,ð"$ Ðwill€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€theÏdefendant€demonstrates€that€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€the€inferencesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rationalÏtrier€of€fact€to€find€the€accused€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.Ð 4°*, ÐBreweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Accordingly,€it€is€theÐ 6 ,. Ðappellate€court's€duty€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€the€evidence,€viewed€under€theseÏstandards,€was€sufficient€for€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.Ed.2d€560Ð 0Ð Ð(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).Ð  À Ðà ` àThe€appellants€argue€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€insufficientÏto€prove€that€they€were€riding€their€motorcycles€without€helmets.€€At€trial,€thereÏwas€testimony€that,€when€issuing€the€citations,€each€officer€requested€the€cyclistððsÏdriverððs€license€and€registration,€compared€the€individual€with€his€or€her€driverððsÏlicense€picture,€verified€that€the€information€on€the€license€and€registration€wasÏcorrect,€and€obtained€the€cyclistððs€signature€on€the€citation.€€The€officers€verifiedÏthat€each€cyclist€was€not€wearing€a€helmet€before€issuing€a€citation€and€did€notÏissue€a€citation€to€anyone€who€claimed€that€he€was€wearing€a€helmet€in€theÏprocession.€€The€officers€determined€whether€an€individual€was€riding€without€aÏhelmet€by€observing€whether€the€individual€had€a€helmet€in€his€or€her€possession.€ÏAdditionally,€the€state€introduced€court€documents€which€included€appellantsððÏsignatures,€and€the€jury€was€able€to€compare€the€signatures€on€the€courtÏdocuments€to€the€signatures€on€the€citations.€Ìà ` àThe€identity€of€the€appellants€was€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury.€€òòState€v.Ð @,à"$ ÐPhillipsóó,€728€S.W.2d€21,€25€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€The€jury€could€reasonablyÐ 0.Ð$& Ðinfer€from€the€evidence€that€appellants€were€riding€their€motorcycles€without€aÏhelmet.€€This€Court€is€not€at€liberty€to€reevaluate€that€assessment.Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìœñ)ññ2ñÌñ2ñ›œñ)ññ)ññ2ñÌñ2ñ›ñ)ñÐ Ð9p02 Ðà@ØØ)®àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àWe€hold€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„9„302€does€not€violate€appellantsððÏrights€to€privacy€and€freedom€of€expression€protected€under€the€federal€and€stateÏconstitutions.€€Moreover,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustainÏappellantsðð€convictions€for€violating€the€statute.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court€is€affirmed.ñ)ññ+ññ)ñÔ#†X T XX Xfç#Ôñ)ññ+ññ,ññ)ñÔ#†Š!wŠ XX Tf #Ôñ)ññ,ñÌÌñ-ñà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àÌÌÌÌñ-ñÓ  Óñ-ñà ` àÌÌÌñ-ñÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àñ&ñJERRY€L.€SMITHñ&ññ&ñDAVID€H.€WELLESñ&ñ,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ìñ'ñPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEñ'ñÌÌÌ___________________________________Ìñ(ñDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEñ(ñ