ÿWPC} ÛšHL/c –ÆW`H% f÷9‚ï XŒñúÓð™LÈ&ŽŒëQwJåmâÖw+ã¡Ã[Ÿä©j7 åp™ñÊBò¹ÕAdÃ3tV Ù]kMO½ŸÏ¿Èèf¾Ýêv{.…Å$Kqr¿ ]ν-8’ô•¬WQM;Ê¥Gyßï³R@¢;m b!̲ õÓ)*íô— Ñ2“kˆæþy¦^÷ŽýíÖŠ€®&‡¦CkCôä¨ïåÑ1¹Çæ@ÝnY82>5„Òˆ+Í¡tÖàB[FqÑtOa^‘ž0Iò[ì”va€¡hÂÚrãN³ˆý[ÅEã¬}ë’ôÈÁÍŒŘ¥, „?b#¡o'Ãÿü»¬ ,ãªKù`døÿ£Qм¬EÚÔše –-£9zÃd~üÿ^þ„ÛóªëŠ€ÍN‹Ç µsŽtËÞª}nŠv•S"Ã1§l¡$&{Ü«yPP€²ž©98|Ë5È««DÐòãZ°fŽ`ºw’{Nž}6#0 ³¶n_ærU%ІÔý°÷l°§ õ¹@ë:¢oˆÃp¾ÍlËnâm“l‡PKJÞ£^Þ Ð111€West€Main€Streetà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ $Ä ÐBrownsville,€TN€€38012à ” àà ì àà D àà œ à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ  ª Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð ð ÐÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àJ.€Ross€DyerÐ ¼ \ Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àAssistant€Attorney€General€Ð ¢!B Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ ˆ"( Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð n# ÐÔ#†XZXX XZ1#ÔÔ‡ XZXXXZÔÌÌÔ#†XZXX XZ@ #ÔÔ‡ XZXXXZÔÌOPINION€FILED:Ð '¦! ÐÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÐ „+$"& ÐÌÌÌÌNORMA€MCGEE€OGLE,€JUDGEÔ#†XZXX XZ„ #ÔÔ‡ XZXXXZÔÐ  0¢&+ ÐÑÑâ âÑ` ` ÑÑXÜÑâ âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÓÓÑÜXÑà@33-Úàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†XZXX XZ3 #ԈР`  Ðà Œ àà ä àOn€September€21,€1998,€the€appellant€pled€guilty€in€the€HaywoodÐ , Ì ÐCounty€Circuit€Court€to€simple€possession€of€a€schedule€II€controlled€substanceÐ ø ˜ Ð(methamphetamine),€a€class€A€misdemeanor.€€Pursuant€to€a€plea€agreement,€theÐ Äd Ðtrial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€in€theÐ 0 ÐHaywood€County€Jail,€suspending€all€but€thirty€days€of€the€appellantððs€sentence.€Ð \ü  ÐThe€appellant€reserved€a€certified€question€of€law€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€Crim.Ð (È  ÐP.€37(b)(2)(i),€asserting€that€the€discovery€of€the€methamphetamines€by€anÐ ô”  Ðenforcement€officer€of€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Safety€stemmed€from€theÐ À` Ðunlawful€detention€of€his€commercial€vehicle€at€a€truck€weigh„inspection€station€forÐ Œ, Ðthe€purpose€of€a€safety€inspection.€€Following€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€andÐ Xø Ðthe€partiesðð€briefs,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð $Ä ÐÌà@§§%Úàò òòòI.€€Factual€Backgroundó óóóˆÐ ¼ \ Ðà Œ àà ä àOn€September€8,€1998,€the€appellant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€theÐ ˆ"( ÐStateððs€use€at€trial€of€the€methamphetamines,€alleging€that€the€drugs€were€the€fruitÐ T$ô Ðof€an€unlawful€seizure€by€the€Department€of€Safety€enforcement€officer.€€The€trialÐ  &À  Ðcourt€conducted€a€suppression€hearing€on€the€same€day.€€At€the€suppressionÐ ì'Œ" Ðhearing,€the€parties€stipulated€the€following€facts:Ð ¸)X $ ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àFirst€of€all,€the€parties€do€stipulate€that€Mr.€Womack€doesÐ „+$"& Ðhave€standing€to€contest€the€search.Ðj, #'ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àSecond,€on€April€1,€1998€in€Haywood€County,€OfficerÐ 6.Ö$) ÐRandy€Coyne€with€the€Commercial€Vehiclar€[sic]Ð /¼%* ÐEnforcement€was€working€at€the€safety€inspection€scalesÐ 0¢&+ Ðon€I„40.€€The€defendant€.€.€.,€while€operating€aÐ è0ˆ', Ðcommercial€motor€vehicle€entered€the€scales€located€inÐ Î1n(- ÐHaywood€County€for€the€purpose€of€being€weighed€andÐ ´2T). Ðinspected.€€On€a€random€basis€without€belief€thatÐ š3:*/ ÐWomack€was€in€violation€of€any€law€whatsoever,€theÐ €4 +0 Ðofficer€.€.€.€ordered€Womack€to€pull€his€tractor„trailer€toÐ f5,1 Ðthe€rear€for€further€inspection€which€the€defendant€did.€Ð L6ì,2 ÐAfter€conversation€between€the€defendant€and€theÐ 27Ò-3 Ðofficer,€Officer€Randy€Coyne€noticed€the€defendantÐ 8¸.4 Ðhaving€pinpoint€pupils,€a€state€which€he€believes€toÐ þ8ž/5 Ðindicate€possible€use€of€narcotics.€€Officer€CoyneÐ `  Ðretrieves€his€drug€detection€dog€who€alerted€on€theÐ F æ Ðdefendantððs€vehicle.€€The€defendant€was€thereafterÐ , Ì Ðrequested€to€give€consent€to€search,€which€the€defendantÐ  ² Ðdid€sign.€€Thereafter,€the€defendant€was€patted€down€andÐ ø ˜ Ða€hard,€cylindrical€object€was€detected€in€the€crotch€area.€Ð Þ ~ Ð.€.€.€€The€officer€requested€the€defendant€to€retrieve€theÐ Äd Ðsame.€€The€defendant€did,€in€fact,€comply€with€theÐ ªJ Ðdirections€of€the€officer€and€the€object€was€discovered€toÐ 0 Ðcontain€a€substance€believed€to€be€methamphetamine,Ð v  ÐSchedule€II.Ð\ü ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓÓFollowing€the€partiesðð€stipulation,€the€trial€court€overruled€the€appellantððs€motion,Ð (È  Ðconcluding€that€Officer€Coyne€was€ð ðwithin€[his]€right€to€do€what€[he]€did.ððÐ ô”  ÐÌà@±±*Úàò òòòII.€€Analysisóóó óˆÐ Œ, Ðà Œ àà ä àIn€light€of€the€partiesðð€stipulation€to€the€relevant€facts,€this€court€mustÐ Xø Ðreview€de€novo€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€law€to€those€facts.€€òòState€v.€Keithóó,Ð $Ä Ð978€S.W.2d€861,€864€(Tenn.€1998).€€Before€reviewing€the€trial€courtððs€application€ofÐ ð Ðthe€law,€we€initially€note€that€the€appellant€concedes€that€he€was€properly€requiredÐ ¼ \ Ðto€stop€and€submit€to€a€weight€inspection€at€the€truck€weigh„inspection€station€onÐ ˆ"( ÐInterstate€40.€€However,€he€asserts€that,€according€to€both€statutory€andÐ T$ô Ðconstitutional€mandates,€Officer€Coyne€was€required€to€possess€some€quantum€ofÐ  &À  Ðindividualized€suspicion€that€the€appellant€had€committed€or€was€committing€anÐ ì'Œ" Ðoffense€prior€to€detaining€the€appellant€for€a€more€thorough€safety€inspection.€Ð ¸)X $ ÐAgain,€the€parties€stipulated€that€Officer€Coyneððs€further€detention€of€the€appellantÐ „+$"& Ðwas€ð ðrandom€.€.€.€[and]€without€belief€that€[the€appellant]€was€in€violation€of€any€lawÐ P-ð#( Ðwhatsoever.ððÐ /¼%* ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€support€of€his€statutory€challenge,€the€appellant€cites€Tenn.€Code.Ð ´2T). ÐAnn.€ðð€65„15„106(b)(3)€(1998€Supp.),€which€provides:Ð €4 +0 ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[E]nforcement€officers€[of€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÐ L6ì,2 ÐSafety],€òòupon€reasonable€belief€that€any€motor€vehicle€isÐ 27Ò-3 Ðbeing€operated€in€violation€of€any€provisions€of€[the€MotorÐ 8¸.4 ÐCarriers€statute]óó,€shall€be€authorized€to€require€the€driverÐ þ8ž/5 Ðthereof€to:€(A)€Stop€and€exhibit€the€registration€certificateÐ `  Ðissued€for€such€vehicle;€(B)€Submit€to€such€enforcementÐ F æ Ðofficer€for€inspection€any€and€all€bills€of€lading,€waybills,Ð , Ì Ðinvoices€or€other€evidence€of€the€character€of€the€ladingÐ  ² Ðbeing€transported€in€such€vehicle;€and€(C)€Permit€suchÐ ø ˜ Ðofficer€to€inspect€the€contents€of€such€vehicle€for€theÐ Þ ~ Ðpurpose€of€comparing€same€with€bills€of€lading,€waybills,Ð Äd Ðinvoices€or€other€evidence€of€ownership€or€ofÐ ªJ Ðtransportation€for€compensation.€Ð0ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€The€appellant€argues€that€this€statute€limits€the€authority€of€theÐ \ü  Ðenforcement€officers€to€conduct€any€safety€inspection€to€those€circumstances€inÐ (È  Ðwhich€an€officer€possesses€a€reasonable€belief€that€a€violation€of€the€Motor€CarriersÐ ô”  Ðstatute€has€occurred.€€We€conclude€that€the€appellantððs€interpretation€is€too€broad.Ð À` ÐÌà Œ àà ä àA€basic€principle€of€statutory€construction€is€to€ascertain€and€giveÐ Xø Ðeffect€to€legislative€intent€without€unduly€restricting€or€expanding€the€intended€scopeÐ $Ä Ðof€a€statute.€€òòParks€v.€Tennessee€Municipal€League€Risk€Management€Poolóó,€974Ð ð ÐS.W.2d€677,€679€(Tenn.€1998).€€Therefore,€if€the€language€of€a€statute€isÐ ¼ \ Ðunambiguous,€the€court€must€apply€its€ordinary€and€plain€meaning.€€òòId.óó€€Additionally,Ð ˆ"( Ðany€construction€of€the€general€provisions€of€the€Motor€Carriers€statute€must€beÐ T$ô Ðconducted€in€light€of€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€65„15„123€(1998€Supp.),€which€provides:Ð  &À  ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThis€part€.€.€.€shall€be€given€a€liberal€construction,€andÐ ì'Œ" Ðany€doubt€as€to€the€existence€or€extent€of€a€powerÐ Ò(r# Ðconferred€shall€be€resolved€in€favor€of€the€existence€ofÐ ¸)X $ Ðthe€power,€to€the€end€that€the€department€may€effectivelyÐ ž*>!% Ðgovern€and€control€operations€of€motor€carriers€in€theÐ „+$"& Ðpublic€interest.Ðj, #'ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÓÈ+Óà Œ àà ä àÌà Œ àà ä àÌà Œ àà ä àAccording€to€the€ordinary€and€plain€meaning€of€its€language,€theÐ è0ˆ', Ðdisputed€statute€does€not€address€the€circumstances€under€which€enforcementÐ ´2T). Ðofficers€may€conduct€routine€and€general€safety€inspections€of€motor€carriers€norÐ €4 +0 Ðdoes€the€statute€necessarily€preclude€such€inspections.€€Instead,€the€disputedÐ L6ì,2 Ðstatute€simply€defines€the€circumstances,€i.e.,€the€ð ðreasonable€beliefðð€requirement,Ð 8¸.4 Ðunder€which€an€enforcement€officer€may€conduct€an€investigatory€stop€of€anÐ `  Ðindividual€vehicle€for€the€purpose€of€searching€the€contents€of€the€detained€vehicleÐ , Ì Ðand€comparing€the€contents€to€any€bills€of€lading,€waybills,€or€invoices.òòóó€€Tenn.€Code.Ð ø ˜ ÐAnn.€ðð€65„15„106(b)(3).€€According€to€this€interpretation,€Officer€Coyneððs€conduct€didÐ Äd Ðnot€fall€within€the€purview€of€the€statute€and€was€not€subject€to€the€reasonable€beliefÐ 0 Ðrequirement.€€In€other€words,€the€appellant€in€this€case€does€not€allege€that€OfficerÐ \ü  ÐCoyne€ordered€him€to€park€his€truck€at€the€rear€of€the€weigh„inspection€station€forÐ (È  Ðthe€purpose€of€inspecting€the€contents€of€his€vehicle.€€Rather,€in€the€trial€court€andÐ ô”  Ðon€appeal,€the€appellant€states€that€Officer€Coyne€intended€to€conduct€ð ða€moreÐ À` Ðthorough€safety€inspection.ðð€€Indeed,€the€stipulated€facts€indicate€that€the€officer€onlyÐ Œ, Ðdecided€to€conduct€a€search€of€the€contents€of€the€vehicle€when€his€drug€detectionÐ Xø Ðdog€ð ðalerted€on€the€[appellantððs]€vehicle.ððÐ $Ä ÐÌà Œ àà ä àMoreover,€if,€as€the€appellant€suggests,€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€65„15„Ð ¼ \ Ð106(b)(3)€defined€the€limits€of€the€enforcement€officersðð€authority€to€conduct€anyÐ ˆ"( Ðinspections€of€motor€carriers,€the€officers€could€not€operate€the€scales€at€the€truckÐ T$ô Ðweigh„inspection€stations€established€by€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÐ  &À  ÐTransportation€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€55„7„116€(1998).€€Yet,€the€appellantÐ ì'Œ" Ðhas€conceded€that€he€was€lawfully€required€to€submit€to€a€weight€inspection.Ð ¸)X $ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€any€case,€assuming€that€the€language€of€the€disputed€statute€isÐ P-ð#( Ðambiguous,€this€court€must€then€look€to€the€statutory€scheme€as€a€whole.€€òòParksóó,Ð /¼%* Ð974€S.W.2d€at€679.€€Unlike€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€65„15„106,€which€addressesÐ è0ˆ', Ðgenerally€the€powers€of€the€Department€of€Safety,€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€65„15„113Ð ´2T). Ð(1998€Supp.)€specifically€addresses€the€authority€of€the€Department€to€promulgateÐ €4 +0 Ðsafety€rules€and€regulations€and€conduct€safety€inspections.€€A€specific€provisionÐ L6ì,2 Ðrelating€to€a€particular€subject€controls€and€takes€precedent€over€a€general€provisionÐ 8¸.4 Ðapplicable€to€a€multitude€of€subjects.€€òòState€v.€Websteróó,€972€S.W.2d€701,€703€(Tenn.Ð `  ÐCrim.€App.€1998).€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€65„15„113(b),€authorizing€the€Department€toÐ , Ì Ðconduct€inspections€for€the€purpose€of€safety,€does€not€impose€a€ð ðreasonable€beliefððÐ ø ˜ Ðrequirement.Ð Äd ÐÌà Œ àà ä àAccordingly,€the€only€remaining€question€is€whether€the€state€andÐ \ü  Ðfederal€constitutions€required€Officer€Coyne€to€possess€some€quantum€ofÐ (È  Ðindividualized€suspicion€prior€to€detaining€the€appellant€for€a€ð ðmore€thorough€safetyÐ ô”  Ðinspection.ðð€€As€noted€previously,€the€appellant€does€not€challenge€theÐ À` Ðconstitutionality€of€his€required€stop€at€the€weigh„inspection€station€for€the€purposeÐ Œ, Ðof€weighing.€€He€does€argue,€however,€that€Officer€Coyne€exceeded€the€lawfulÐ Xø Ðboundaries€of€the€initial€seizure€by€ordering€the€appellant€to€park€in€the€rear€of€theÐ $Ä Ðweigh„inspection€station€for€the€purpose€of€further€inspection,€without€any€probableÐ ð Ðcause€to€believe€or€reasonable€suspicion€that€the€appellant€had€committed€anyÐ ¼ \ Ðoffense.€€In€order€to€resolve€this€issue,€we€must€delineate€the€lawful€boundaries€ofÐ ˆ"( Ðthe€initial€seizure.Ð T$ô ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€stop€of€an€automobile€and€the€detention€of€its€occupantsÐ ì'Œ" Ðconstitutes€a€seizure€within€the€meaning€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€UnitedÐ ¸)X $ ÐStates€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€even€ifÐ „+$"& Ðthe€purpose€of€the€stop€is€limited€and€the€detention€is€brief.€€òòWren€v.€United€Statesóó,Ð P-ð#( Ð517€U.S.€806,€809„810,€116€S.Ct.€1769,€1772€(1996);€òòDelaware€v.€Prouseóó,€440€U.S.Ð /¼%* Ð648,€653,€99€S.Ct.€1391,€1396€(1979);€òòUnited€States€v.€Martinez„Fuerteóó,€428€U.S.Ð è0ˆ', Ð543,€556,€96€S.Ct.€3074,€3082€(1976);€òòState€v.€Vineyardóó,€958€S.W.2d€730,€734Ð ´2T). Ð(Tenn.€1997).€€It€is€undisputed€in€this€case€that,€when€the€appellant€stopped€at€theÐ €4 +0 Ðweigh„inspection€station,€he€was€ð ðseized.ðð€€A€noted€authority€has€explained:Ð L6ì,2 ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àIt€is€a€common€practice€for€states€to€establish€severalÐ 8¸.4 Ðweighing€stations€at€various€points€about€the€state,Ð þ8ž/5 Ðtypically€adjacent€to€major€highways€and€near€stateÐ `  Ðboundaries,€for€the€purpose€of€weighing€all€trucksÐ F æ Ðpassing€these€points.€€Although€all€these€stations€are€notÐ , Ì Ðmanned€at€all€times,€when€a€particular€station€isÐ  ² Ðoperational€signs€direct€all€truck€traffic€to€pull€off€forÐ ø ˜ Ðweighing.ÐÞ ~ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓVCÓ4€Wayne€R.€LaFave,€òòSearch€and€Seizureóó€ðð€10.8(c)€(3d€ed.€1996).€€This€courtÐ ªJ Ðsurmises€that€weigh„inspection€stations€in€Tennessee€operate€in€a€similar€fashion,Ð v  Ðbeing€located€at€sites€and€operated€at€times€designed€to€intercept€the€maximumÐ Bâ  Ðnumber€of€trucks€and€resist€being€bypassed€by€trucks.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðððð€55„7„Ð ®  Ð111€(1998)€and€55„7„116.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Úz  Ðà Œ àÌà Œ àà ä àTherefore,€it€is€also€undisputed€in€this€case€that€the€seizure€of€theÐ r Ðappellant€occurred€without€a€warrant.€€Under€both€the€state€and€federalÐ >Þ Ðconstitutions,€warrantless€searches€and€seizures€are€presumed€to€be€unreasonable.€Ð  ª ÐòòKeithóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€865;€òòState€v.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð Öv ÐEvidence€discovered€as€a€result€of€such€a€search€or€seizure€is€subject€toÐ ¢!B Ðsuppression€unless€the€State€demonstrates€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÐ n# Ðthat€the€search€or€seizure€was€conducted€pursuant€to€an€exception€to€the€warrantÐ :%Ú Ðrequirement.€€òòId.óó€€In€other€words,€contrary€to€the€assertion€of€the€State€in€its€brief€toÐ '¦! Ðthis€court,€the€State€carried€the€burden€of€proving€that€the€seizure€of€the€appellantÐ Ò(r# Ðwas€conducted€pursuant€to€an€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement.Ð ž*>!% ÐÌà Œ àà ä àOne€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement€is€an€arrest€based€uponÐ 6.Ö$) Ðprobable€cause€to€believe€that€a€crime€has€been€or€is€being€committed.€€òòBeck€v.Ð 0¢&+ ÐOhioóó,€379€U.S.€89,€91,€85€S.Ct.€223,€225„226€(1964);€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€975€S.W.2dÐ Î1n(- Ð290,€300€(Tenn.€1998).€€Moreover,€in€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€21„22,€88€S.Ct.Ð š3:*/ Ð1868,€1880€(1968),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€acknowledged€that€aÐ `  Ðwarrantless€seizure€short€of€an€arrest,€such€as€occurred€in€this€case,€might€beÐ , Ì Ðjustified€by€something€less€than€probable€cause.€òòóó€òòSee€alsoóó€òòKeithóó,€978€S.W.2d€atÐ ø ˜ Ð865;òòóó€òòVineyardóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€734.€€Finally,€in€òòDelaware€v.€Prouseóó,€440€U.S.€at€654„Ð Äd Ð655,€99€S.Ct.€at€1396„1397€(citing€òòCamara€v.€Municipal€Courtóó,€387€U.S.€523,€532,Ð 0 Ð87€S.Ct.€1727,€1733€(1967)),€the€Supreme€Court€noted€that,€in€the€context€ofÐ \ü  Ðseizures€which€are€less€intrusive€than€an€actual€arrest,€a€balance€of€interests€mightÐ (È  Ðeven€ð ðpreclude[]€insistence€upon€[any]€ððquantum€of€individualized€suspicion,ðððð€andÐ ô”  Ðother€safeguards€could€be€relied€upon€to€assure€that€the€individualððs€reasonableÐ À` Ðexpectation€of€privacy€is€not€subject€to€the€discretion€of€the€official€in€the€field.€Ð Œ, ÐAccordingly,€òòóówhile€the€Court€concluded€in€òòProuseóó€that€the€balance€of€interests€didÐ Xø Ðnot€support€random€automobile€stops€for€the€mere€purpose€of€inspecting€driversððÐ $Ä Ðlicenses,€òòId.óó€at€663,€1401,€the€Court€carefully€noted€that€its€holding€was€not€intendedÐ ð ÐtoÐ ¼ \ ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àcast€doubt€on€the€permissibility€of€roadside€truck€weigh„Ð ˆ"( Ðstations€and€inspection€checkpoints,€at€which€someÐ n# Ðvehicles€may€be€subject€to€further€detention€for€safetyÐ T$ô Ðand€regulatory€inspection€than€are€others.€Ó2SÓÐ:%Úä Ð ä Ð  ÐòòId.óó€at€663€n.26,€1401€n.€26.Ð '¦! ÐÌà Œ àà ä àòòóóIn€òòProuseóó,€the€Court€referred€to€a€line€of€Supreme€Court€casesÐ ž*>!% Ðbeginning€with€òòCamaraóó,€387€U.S.€at€532,€87€S.Ct.€at€1733,€and€including€òòMichiganÐ j, #' ÐDepartment€of€State€Police€v.€Sitzóó,€496€U.S.€444,€110€S.Ct.€2481€(1990),€in€whichÐ 6.Ö$) Ðthe€Supreme€Court€articulated€a€three„part€balancing€analysis€in€determining€theÐ 0¢&+ Ðquantum€of€individualized€suspicion,€if€any,€necessary€to€justify€a€warrantlessÐ Î1n(- Ðseizure€short€of€an€arrest.€€Our€supreme€court€adopted€this€analysis€in€òòState€v.Ð š3:*/ ÐDowneyóó,€945€S.W.2d€102,€112€(Tenn.€1997),€a€case€in€which€the€court€upheld€theÐ f5,1 Ðconstitutionality€of€sobriety€roadblocks€at€which€motorists€are€randomly€detained€byÐ 27Ò-3 Ðpolice.€€The€analysis€adopted€in€òòDowneyóó€requires€a€court€to€balance€(1)€the€gravityÐ þ8ž/5 Ðof€the€public€concerns€served€by€the€search€or€seizure;€(2)€the€degree€to€which€theÐ `  Ðsearch€or€seizure€advances€the€public€interest;€and€(3)€the€severity€of€theÐ , Ì Ðinterference€with€individualized€liberty.€€òòóó945€S.W.2d€at€107€(citation€omitted).€€InÐ ø ˜ Ðapplying€this€analysis€in€òòDowneyóó,€our€supreme€court€emphasized€that,€in€theÐ Äd Ðabsence€of€any€quantum€of€individualized€suspicion,€a€warrantless€seizure€must€atÐ 0 Ðleast€be€carried€out€pursuant€to€a€plan€embodying€explicit€neutral€limitations€on€theÐ \ü  Ðconduct€of€individual€officers€in€order€to€be€constitutionally€reasonable.€€òòId.óó€at€110.Ð (È  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòSitzóó,€496€U.S.€at€450„451,€110€S.Ct.€at€2485,€the€United€StatesÐ À` ÐSupreme€Court€similarly€upheld€the€constitutionality€of€Michiganððs€sobrietyÐ Œ, Ðcheckpoints.€€However,€the€Supreme€Court€suggested€that€the€balancing€analysisÐ Xø Ðmight€produce€a€different€result€if€applied€to€an€allegation€of€ð ðunreasonableÐ $Ä Ðtreatment€of€any€person€after€an€actual€detention€at€a€particular€checkpointðð€asÐ ð Ðopposed€to€a€general€challenge€to€the€constitutionality€of€the€checkpoint€itself.€€òòId.óó€Ð ¼ \ ÐThe€Court€concluded,€ð ðDetention€of€particular€motorists€for€more€extensive€fieldÐ ˆ"( Ðsobriety€testing€may€require€satisfaction€of€an€individualized€suspicion€standard.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ T$ô Ðat€451,€2485.€€Similarly,€the€appellant€argues€in€this€case€that€his€detention€for€aÐ  &À  Ðmore€thorough€safety€inspection€required€the€application€of€an€individualizedÐ ì'Œ" Ðsuspicion€standard.Ð ¸)X $ ÐòòóóÌà Œ àà ä àHowever,òòóó€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòProuseóó€identified€aÐ P-ð#( Ðsecond€line€of€cases€which€specifically€addressed€the€permissible€boundaries€ofÐ /¼%* Ðwarrantless€inspections€of€heavily€regulated€businesses€(and€seizures€incidentalÐ è0ˆ', Ðthereto).€€òòóó440€U.S.€at€662,€99€S.Ct.€at€1400€(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€Biswellóó,€406€U.S.Ð ´2T). Ð311,€92€S.Ct.€1593€(1972),€and€òòColonnade€Catering€Corporation€v.€United€Statesóó,Ð €4 +0 Ð397€U.S.€72,€90€S.Ct.€774€(1970)).€€More€recently,€the€Supreme€Court€revisited€whatÐ L6ì,2 Ðhas€been€referred€to€as€the€ð ðpervasively€regulated€business€doctrineðð€or€theÐ 8¸.4 Ðð ðColonnade„Biswell€doctrine,ðð€in€òòNew€York€v.€Burgeróó,€482€U.S.€691,€702,€107€S.Ct.Ð `  Ð2636,€2643€(1987)(citations€omitted),€remarking:Ð , Ì ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àBecause€the€owner€or€operator€of€commercial€premisesÐ ø ˜ Ðin€a€ððclosely€regulatedðð€industry€has€a€reducedÐ Þ ~ Ðexpectation€of€privacy,€the€warrant€and€probable€causeÐ Äd Ðrequirements,€which€fulfill€the€traditional€FourthÐ ªJ ÐAmendment€standard€of€reasonableness€.€.€.€,€haveÐ 0 Ðlessened€application€in€this€context.ÓtcÓÐv ä Ð ä Ð  ÐConsistent€with€this€observation,€the€Court€held€that€a€warrantless€inspection€of€suchÐ Bâ  Ða€heavily€regulated€business€is€reasonable€if€the€following€prerequisites€areÐ ®  Ðsatisfied:€(1)€There€must€be€a€substantial€governmental€interest€that€informs€theÐ Úz  Ðregulatory€scheme€pursuant€to€which€the€inspection€is€made.€€(2)€€The€warrantlessÐ ¦F Ðinspections€must€be€necessary€to€further€the€regulatory€scheme.€€(3)€The€statuteððsÐ r Ðinspection€program,€in€terms€of€the€certainty€and€regularity€of€its€application€mustÐ >Þ Ðprovide€a€constitutionally€adequate€substitute€for€a€warrant.€€òòId.óó€at€702„703,€2644.€€InÐ  ª Ðother€words,€the€statute€must€be€sufficiently€comprehensive€and€defined€that€theÐ Öv Ðowner€or€operator€of€the€business€cannot€help€but€be€aware€that€his€property€will€beÐ ¢!B Ðsubject€to€periodic€inspections€undertaken€for€specific€purposes,€and€the€statuteÐ n# Ðmust€limit€the€discretion€of€the€inspecting€officers.€€òòId.óó€€The€established€policy€of€anÐ :%Ú Ðagency€may€be€considered€as€well€as€limitations€set€forth€in€the€authorizing€statute.€Ð '¦! ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Kaiyo€Maruóó,€699€F.2d€989,€996€n.17€(9òòthóó€Cir.€1983);€òòState€v.Ð Ò(r# ÐTurcotteóó,€571€A.2d€305,€308€(N.J.€Super.€Ct.€App.€Div.€1990).Ð ž*>!% ÐÌà Œ àà ä àWe€believe€the€pervasively€regulated€business€doctrine€is€applicable€toÐ 6.Ö$) Ðmotor€carriers.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòDomingues„Prietoóó,€923€F.2d€464,€468€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1991);Ð 0¢&+ ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Burchóó,€153€F.3d€1140,€1141€(10òòthóó€Cir.€1998).òòóó€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòóó4€Wayne€R.Ð Î1n(- ÐLaFave,€òòSearch€and€Seizureóó€ðð€10.8(c)€(3d€ed.€1996).€€Accordingly,€if€the€warrantlessÐ š3:*/ Ðseizure€in€this€case€is€to€be€upheld,€its€justification€must€rest€upon€this€doctrine.€Ð f5,1 ÐUnder€this€doctrine,€the€distinction€identified€in€òòSitzóó€would€conceivably€have€lessÐ 27Ò-3 Ðsignificance€if€the€prerequisites€identified€in€òòBurgeróó€were€satisfied.€€In€any€event,€inÐ þ8ž/5 Ðorder€to€establish€the€prerequisites€of€òòBurgeróó,€the€State€in€this€case€needed€toÐ `  Ðestablish€Officer€Coyneððs€compliance€with€statutory€provisions,€or€regulations,€rules,Ð , Ì Ðand€established€policies€of€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Safety,€relating€to€theÐ ø ˜ Ðinspection€of€trucks€at€weigh„inspection€stations.€€The€State€failed€to€carry€itsÐ Äd Ðburden.Ð 0 ÐÌà Œ àà ä àAs€noted€previously,€the€statutes€offer€little€guidance.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð (È  ÐEvid.€202(a)(1)€(mandating€that€courts€take€judicial€notice€of€statutes).€€Moreover,Ð ô”  Ðany€applicable€regulations,€rules,€or€policy€decisions€promulgated€by€the€TennesseeÐ À` ÐDepartment€of€Safety€are€not€a€part€of€this€record.€€Unlike€in€the€case€of€statutes,Ð Œ, Ðthis€court€is€not€mandated€to€take€judicial€notice€of€regulations€and€rules€or€policyÐ Xø Ðdecisions€of€the€Department€of€Safety.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€202(b).€€Indeed,€before€aÐ $Ä Ðcourt€may€take€judicial€notice€of€a€regulation€or€rule€published€by€a€state€agency,€aÐ ð Ðparty€must€request€that€the€court€take€judicial€notice€of€the€regulation€or€rule€andÐ ¼ \ Ðmust€give€reasonable€notice€to€the€adverse€party.€€òòId.óó€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Chearisóó,Ð ˆ"( ÐNo.€02C01„9710„CC„00407,€1999€WL€167609,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,Ð T$ô ÐMarch€29,€1999)(holding€that€neither€the€trial€court€nor€this€court€could€take€judicialÐ  &À  Ðnotice€of€an€ordinance€that€had€not€been€entered€into€evidence€or€submitted€to€theÐ ì'Œ" Ðcourt€for€introduction€into€evidence€in€light€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€202(b)€and€the€StateððsÐ ¸)X $ Ðfailure€to€request€that€the€court€take€judicial€notice€of€the€ordinance).Ð „+$"& ÐÌà Œ àà ä à€€The€State€in€this€case€neither€produced€any€applicable€regulations€orÐ /¼%* Ðrules€nor€requested€that€the€trial€court€take€judicial€notice€of€the€regulations€andÐ è0ˆ', Ðrules€of€the€Department€of€Safety€governing€safety€inspections€of€motor€carriers.€Ð ´2T). ÐIndeed,€the€State€failed€even€to€present€testimony€by€Officer€Coyne€concerning€anyÐ €4 +0 Ðapplicable€regulations€or€rules€governing€his€conduct.€€In€short,€the€record€is€devoidÐ L6ì,2 Ðof€proof€that€the€appellantððs€seizure,€including€his€detention€for€further€inspection,Ð 8¸.4 Ðwas€conducted€pursuant€to€valid€regulations€and€rules€which€would€satisfy€theÐ `  Ðpervasively€regulated€business€doctrine€and€excuse€the€requirement€of€a€warrant.€Ð , Ì ÐAccordingly,€we€must€conclude€that€the€methamphetamines€were€the€fruit€of€anÐ ø ˜ Ðunlawful€detention€and€should€have€been€suppressed.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Äd ÐÌà@õõ(Úàò òòòIII.€€Conclusionóóó ó€ˆÐ \ü  Ðà Œ àà ä àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€reverse€the€action€of€the€trial€court€inÐ (È  Ðoverruling€the€appellant's€motion€to€suppress€and€set€aside€the€appellantððs€plea€ofÐ ô”  Ðguilt.€€Additionally,€we€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court,€and,€in€view€of€ourÐ À` Ðtreatment€of€the€dispositive€issue,€the€case€shall€be€dismissed.Ð Œ, ÐÌÌÓÓÌÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ¼ \ Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àNorma€McGee€Ogle,€JudgeÐ ¢!B ÐÌÌÌÌCONCUR:Ð  &À  ÐÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ Ò(r# ÐDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÐ ¸)X $ ÐÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ P-ð#( ÐThomas€T.€Woodall,€Judge