ÿWPCgW Å# Ö %á 0@ç 04'U:[b•U:w@×4+ 0D: 1m~ 0cë 0JN˜ 0T  0^ô 0hR 0rºF,r 0|z Bö 0† 0™ B-) 0BV 1u˜ 0d ! 0Âq! 0P3"U:ƒ" C½" AM×"Æ$# 0Kê# D35$ AMh$Ƶ$ 0@{% 0D»% D+ÿ% 0P*&fz&U4|&b°& h—¸&U)*O'B)y'DC¢' AOå' 4(˜@)ÏØ+F§-æí/åÓ3¢¸6Z<„`@§äC ‹Eô—Fv~‹HvÓ J 0wÜO 0ŠSP 0 ÝP 0´}Q 0Ç1R 0ÛøR 0ïÓS AOÂTÆU 0D×U D/V BJV 0 gV˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ%X2 ÿÿ$Squareð ðà0 à( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular BEBBPBD B†e B« BÓ€B2UB5îBÓ€R¦"½¬3|x$B(5Ã$òòÚ  Ú9Ú  Úóótuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôc:\wpwin60\template\memo\memo1.wpt2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô)Hairline d2-¦$Squareð ðà0  à ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓF>> 4_HeadingsHeadingsÔ‡3XzXXXÔÔ‡3ò¤òXXzÔÔ‡3XzXXXÔÔ‡3ò¤òXXzÔ((2¾¸$¢¢Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular÷ÿdÿÿÿd(-)*A<< CÿÿLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'ÿÿdxd,-./Aýÿ<< Cÿÿ„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$••ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'ÈÈÈÈdxd((3¾¸$§§Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ0²ž]A ‹Arial Bold- ù-2222222ÐTABLE A2< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d????7Border 1dd€-)@Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€>XÔÌÌò òMay€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€>ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ŽÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€€The€defendant€specifically€argued€that€the€roadblock€violated€article€I,€sections€7€and€8Ïof€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€that€law€enforcement€officersðð€claim€that€the€roadblock€was€for€theÏpurpose€of€checking€driversðð€licenses€was€a€subterfuge€for€detecting€motorists€under€theÏinfluence,€and€that€officers€failed€to€follow€certain€administrative€guidelines€governing€theÏroadblock.Ì ÅÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€€The€record€indicates€that€Lt.€Hill€did€not€identify€a€specific€administrative€order€that€heÏwas€following€and€that€a€copy€of€General€Order€410€was€introduced€as€an€exhibit€by€the€defense.Ì <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€€Accordingly,€we€do€not€address€the€specific€provisions€of€General€Order€410,€nor€do€weÏconsider€any€provision€of€law€that€may€authorize€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€Officers€to€makeÏstops€for€the€purpose€of€checking€driversðð€licenses.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„7„104€andÏðð55„50„351.Ì ÜÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€has€upheld€sobriety€roadblocks€in€the€following€cases:€ÏòòState€v.€Daniel€G.€Hamptonóó,€No.€03„C„01„9503„CR„00107€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€July€3,€1996,ÏKnoxville);€€òòState€v.€George€E.€Cunninghamóó,€No.€03C01„9112„CR„00389€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Aug.Ï13,€1992,€Knoxville);€òòState€v.€Matthew€Manuelóó,€No.€87„96„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nov.€23,€1988,ÏNashville).€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€has€also€addressed€roadblocks€for€the€purpose€ofÏchecking€driversðð€licenses€under€€Tennessee€Department€of€Safety€General€Order€410.€€òòState€v.ÏBinionóó,€900€S.W.2d€702€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Dayid€Lynn€Hagyóó,€No.€03C01„9505„CR„00152€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Dec.€5,€1995,€Knoxville).€Ì ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€€It€was€partly€on€this€basis€that€the€court€distinguished€òòDelaware€v.€Prouseóó,€440€U.S.€648,Ï99€S.Ct.€1391,€59€L.Ed.2d€660€(1979).€€In€òòProuseóó,€the€court€invalidated€the€practice€of€usingÏrandom,€roving€stops€to€check€for€unlicensed€drivers€because€there€was€no€evidence€that€such€aÏpractice€would€be€effective.€€Moreover,€the€use€of€such€stops€would€involve€ð ðstandardless€andÏunconstrainedðð€discretion.€€òòIdóó.,€440€U.S.€at€661,€99€S.Ct.€at€1400.Ì ˜Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€òòSeeóó€òòHagood€v.€Town€of€Town€Creekóó,€628€So.2d€1057€(Ala.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòMullinaxÏv.€Stateóó,€920€S.W.2d€503€(Ark.€App.€1996),€òòaffððdóó,€938€S.W.2d€€801€(Ark.€1997);€òòIngersoll€v.ÏPalmeróó,€743€P.2d€1299€(Cal.€1987);€òòPeople€v.€Risteróó,€803€P.2d€483€(Col.€1990);€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,Ï483€So.2d€433€(Fla.€1986);€òòOððKelley€v.€Stateóó,€436€S.E.2d€760€(Ga.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Loydóó,Ï530€N.W.2d€708€(Iowa€1995);€òòState€v.€Barkeróó,€850€P.2d€885€(Kan.€1993);€òòKinslow€v.€Comóó.,€660ÏS.W.2d€677€(Ky.€Ct.€App.€1983);€òòState€v.€Leightonóó,€551€A.2d€116€(Me.€1988);€òòLittle€v.€Stateóó,€479ÏA.2d€903€(Md.€1984);€òòCom.€v.€Andersonóó,€547€N.E.2d€1134€(Mass.€1989);€òòState€v.€Welchóó,€755ÏS.W.2d€624€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.€Mazurekóó,€567€A.2d€277€(N.J.€Super.€1989);€òòState€v.ÏBatesóó,€902€P.2d€1060€(N.M.€App.€1995);€òòPeople€v.€Scottóó,€483€N.Y.S.2d€649,€473€N.E.2d€1Ï(1984);€òòCity€of€Bismarck€v.€Uhdenóó,€513€N.W.2d€373€(N.D.€1994);€òòCom.€v.€Tarbertóó,€535€A.2d€1035Ï(Pa.€1987);€òòCrandol€v.€City€of€Newport€Newsóó,€386€S.E.2d€113€(Va.€1989);€òòCarte€v.€Clineóó,€460ÏS.E.2d€48€(W.Va.€1995).€Ì üÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€€By€contrast,€courts€that€have€invalidated€roadblocks€have€questioned€whetherÏroadblocks€are€the€least€intrusive€means€through€which€to€advance€the€stateððs€interest€in€curbingÏdrunken€driving.€€As€the€Louisiana€Supreme€Court€said,€ð ðthe€effectiveness€of€roadblocks€isÏquestionable,€especially€when€weighed€against€other€measures€less€intrusive€on€individualÏprivacy,€such€as€roving€patrols€which€act€only€when€there€is€an€articulable€basis€for€a€stop.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏChurchóó,€538€So.2d€at€997;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Hendersonóó,€756€P.2d€at€1060€(ð ðthe€efficacy€ofÏroadblocks€is€questionableðð);€òòPimental€v.€Dept.€of€Transportationóó,€561€A.2d€at€1352€(ð ðlessÏintrusive€means€exist€to€address€the€drunk€driving€problemðð).Ì zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€€The€dissent€labels€this€conclusion€ð ðmerely€speculation,ðð€and€conjectures€thatÏð ðadministrative€officials€legitimately€could€have€decided€that€an€unpublicized€roadblock€wouldÏhave€a€greater€deterrent€effect.ðð€€We€merely€stress€that€the€presence€or€absence€of€publicity€is€aÏfactor€in€assessing€the€reasonableness€of€the€roadblock.€€The€absence€of€evidence€in€this€recordÏregarding€the€publicity€or€lack€of€publicity€surrounding€this€roadblock,€we€believe,€is€indicative€ofÏthe€Stateððs€overall€failure€to€show€that€this€roadblock€was€established€in€accordance€withÏsupervisory€and€administrative€standards.€€€€€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€€We€observe,€however,€that€General€Order€410€specifically€stated€that€a€roadblockÏð ðcannot€be€used€as€a€subterfuge€to€search€for€other€crimes.ððÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€>XÔÌÌò òMay€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€>ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó êÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÓ  ÓÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  ÝWhile€the€majority€concludes€that€prior€publicity€advances€the€deterrent€goal€of€sobrietyÏroadblocks,€I€do€not€understand€the€majority€to€hold€that€publicity€is€constitutionally€required€toÏsustain€the€validity€of€a€roadblock.ÌPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  eskto Geneva ÒÒ  eskto Geneva Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd(­+2$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑÀ°ÑÑ̰ÑÒ„°ÒÒ4°ÒÔ€X8÷XX%XÔÔ€ò ÅòXX8÷Ôò òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóó óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›Ò 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ X ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ7€8÷XXdædÈ7ÑØ ØÓ&€XÐd&Ӝـ€ÙßR€AB@A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌØ ØÓ&€XÐd&ÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONÌÌó óóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòFiled:œ€€May€12,€1997ó óà àóóà àà àà àà àà àÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant/Cross„Appellee,à àà à)à àHAMILTON€CRIMINALÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌ€Vs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€STEPHEN€M.€BEVIL,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà à€€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSARAH€HUTTON€DOWNEY,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee/Cross„Appellant.à àà à)à àNo.€€03„S„01„9604„CC„00039ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellant/Cross„Appellee:à àà àFor€Appellee/Cross„Appellant:ó óóóÌÌJohn€Knox€Walkupà àà àà àà àJerry€H.€SummersÌAttorney€General€&€Reporterà àà àSummers,€McCrea€&€WyattÌà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TennesseeÌMichael€E.€Mooreà àà àà àà àÌSolicitor€Generalà àà àà àÌÌJohn€P.€CauleyÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌòòAt€trial:óóÌGary€D.€GerbitzÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌCharles€A.€Cerney,€Jr.ÌAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌChattanooga,€TennesseeÌÌÌò òòòà@ àFor€Amicus€Curiae,Ìà@ àTennessee€Association€of€Criminal€Defense€Lawyers:ó óóóÌÌà@ àJonathan€D.€CooperÌà@ àDaniel€&€ObermanÌà@ àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌÌÌò òÔ€>„Ôà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÔ€>XÔÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€J.Ç›ÓÓÑ  Ñà àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€answer€a€question€of€first€impression:€whetherÏa€sobriety€roadblock€at€which€police€officers€stop€and€question€motorists€whoseÏprior€conduct€is€unremarkable€and€free€from€suspicion,€is€an€unreasonableÏseizure€in€violation€of€article€I,€section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution?€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€arrested€for€driving€under€the€influence€after€beingÏstopped€at€a€roadblock€in€Hamilton€County,€Tennessee.€€Prior€to€being€stopped,Ïthe€defendantððs€conduct€was€unremarkable€and€not€suspicious.€€At€trial,€theÏdefendant€moved€to€suppress€the€evidence€on€the€ground€that€the€roadblockÏwas€unconstitutional€because€it€was€an€unreasonable€seizure€in€violation€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.× ƒC ××  ×€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€motion.€€On€appeal,€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€concluded€that€the€use€of€a€roadblock€is€not€a€òòper€seóóÏviolation€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€But€it€held€that€the€roadblock€in€thisÏcase€was€an€unreasonable€seizure€because€there€was€no€supervisory€orÏadministrative€authority€for€the€roadblock,€its€location,€or€procedures.€€As€aÏresult,€€these€policy€decisions€were€left€to€the€unrestrained€discretion€of€officersÏin€the€field.ÌÌà àWe€recognize€the€Stateððs€compelling€interest€in€detecting€and€deterringÏmotorists€who€drive€while€under€the€influence€of€alcohol.€€The€drunk€driver€cutsÏa€wide€swath€of€death,€pain,€grief,€and€untold€injury€across€the€roads€ofÍTennessee.€€The€carnage€and€tragedy€is€recorded€daily€in€our€newspapers€andÏon€our€television€screens.€€Indeed,€the€Legislature€at€nearly€every€session€hasÏstrengthened€the€driving€under€the€influence€laws€in€recognition€of€the€strongÏpublic€interest€in€solving€the€problem.€€No€one€can€dispute€the€tragedy€andÏmagnitude€of€the€drunk€driving€problem€or€the€Stateððs€interest€in€eradicating€it.€Ìà àWe,€therefore,€conclude€that€the€use€of€a€sobriety€roadblock,€although€aÏseizure,€can€be€a€reasonable€seizure€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution,Ïprovided€it€is€established€and€operated€in€accordance€with€predeterminedÏoperational€guidelines€and€supervisory€authority€that€minimize€the€risk€ofÏarbitrary€intrusion€on€individuals€and€limit€the€discretion€of€law€enforcementÏofficers€at€the€scene.€€As€a€result,€we€affirm€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€for€theÏreasons€articulated€below.ÌÌà àIn€so€holding,€we€observe€that€article€I,€section€7€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution,€which€prohibits€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures,€imposesÏlimits€on€search€and€seizure€powers€in€order€to€prevent€arbitrary€interference€byÏthe€police€with€the€privacy€and€personal€liberty€of€individuals.€€Seizures€short€ofÏarrest€may€be€made€on€lesser€grounds€than€probable€cause,€but€usually€requireÏa€founded€suspicion€based€on€articulable€facts€that€the€person€is€or€hasÏengaged€in€criminal€activity.€€A€roadblock€seizure,€therefore,€is€a€departure€fromÏthese€fundamental€constitutional€principles.€€It€permits€officers€to€stop€andÏquestion€persons€whose€conduct€is€ordinary,€innocent,€and€free€from€suspicion.ÌÌà àIn€order€for€us€to€determine€whether€a€seizure€which€is€less€intrusive€thanÏa€traditional€arrest€is€reasonable,€we€must€balance€the€public€interest€served€byÏthe€seizure€with€the€severity€of€the€interference€with€individual€liberty.€€A€centralÏconcern€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€and€other€state€courts,€in€thisÏbalancing€analysis€ð ðhas€been€to€assure€that€an€individualððs€reasonableÏexpectation€of€privacy€is€not€subject€to€arbitrary€invasions€solely€at€theÏunfettered€discretion€of€officers€in€the€field€.€.€.€[and]€that€the€seizure€must€beÏcarried€out€pursuant€to€a€plan€embodying€explicit,€neutral€limitations€on€theÏconduct€of€individual€officers.ðð€€òòBrown€v.€Texasóó,€443€U.S.€47,€50„51,€99€S.Ct.Ï2637,€2640,€61€L.Ed.2d€357€(1979).€€We€agree€that€this€is€the€appropriateÏconstitutional€standard€to€be€applied.ÌÌà àThe€decision€we€announce€today,€which€upholds€the€constitutionality€ofÏsobriety€roadblocks,€also€controls€our€decision€on€an€application€for€appeal€filedÏin€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Daniel€G.€Hamptonóó.€€In€that€case,€the€issue€is€the€same€„Ïi.e.,€whether€the€sobriety€roadblock€violated€the€Tennessee€Constitution?€€WeÏagree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€the€roadblock€in€òòHamptonóó€did€notÏviolate€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€that€the€conviction€should€be€upheld.€ÏAccordingly,€we€deny€the€òòHamptonóó€application€for€appeal€by€separate€order.ÌÌà@ àòòò òBACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àOn€August€8,€1992,€at€approximately€12:00€a.m.,€Lt.€Ronnie€Hill€of€theÏTennessee€Highway€Patrol€and€numerous€other€officers€set€up€a€highwayÏroadblock€on€Hixson€Pike€in€Hamilton€County,€Tennessee.€€Hill€was€assisted€byÍmembers€of€the€Chattanooga€Police€Department€DUI€task€force,€the€HamiltonÏCounty€DUI€task€force,€and€auxiliary€officers€of€the€Hamilton€County€SheriffððsÏDepartment.€€Hill€did€not€obtain€the€approval€of€a€superior€officer€regarding€theÏestablishment,€time€or€location€of€the€roadblock.€€ÌÌà àAccording€to€Lt.€Hill,€the€roadblock€was€conducted€pursuant€to€writtenÏguidelines€established€by€the€Department€of€Safety€for€driversðð€license€checks,Ïwhich€he€believed€applied€to€roadblocks€for€any€purpose.€€Hill€said€that€theÏpurpose€of€his€roadblock€was€to€check€driversðð€licenses,€but€he€admitted€that€theÏofficers€assisting€him€were€members€of€DUI€task€forces.€€Hill€also€said€that€he€Ïchose€the€location€and€that€there€was€no€advance€public€announcement€of€theÏexistence,€time€or€location€of€the€roadblock.ÌÌà àHill€supervised€the€operation€of€the€roadblock€and€gave€instructions€toÏthe€other€officers€at€the€scene.€€Four€to€six€patrol€cars€with€flashing€blue€lightsÏwere€positioned€on€each€side€of€the€road€and€in€the€center€turn€lane.€€The€lanesÏwere€marked€by€existing€lines€on€the€highway.€€Hill€testified€that€there€wasÏadequate€visibility€to€avoid€accidents€and€congested€traffic.€€All€motoristsÏtraveling€north€or€south€on€Hixson€Pike€were€stopped€unless€traffic€becameÏimpeded,€in€which€case€all€traffic€was€permitted€to€pass€through€the€roadblockÏuntil€the€congestion€was€relieved.€€According€to€Hill,€officers€did€not€exerciseÏdiscretion€as€to€which€motorists€were€stopped.€€€Over€one€hundred€cars€wereÏstopped€in€the€two€hours€the€roadblock€was€operated.Ì€€Ìà àThe€defendant€was€stopped€at€the€roadblock€by€Hamilton€County€DeputyÏSheriff€Robert€Starnes,€a€member€of€the€DUI€task€force.€€Starnes€testified€thatÏthe€roadblock€was€set€up€to€check€driversðð€licenses€and€other€traffic€violations,Ïbut€not€to€check€for€drunken€drivers.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€did€nothing€toÏarouse€his€suspicion€as€she€approached€the€roadblock€and€that€she€wasÏstopped€for€the€same€purpose€and€in€the€same€manner€as€other€motorists.€€HeÏasked€to€see€the€defendantððs€driversðð€license€and,€after€smelling€the€odor€ofÏalcohol€and€learning€that€she€had€been€drinking,€instructed€her€to€pull€to€theÏside€of€the€road.€€After€sobriety€testing,€the€defendant€was€arrested.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€defendant€moved€to€suppress€the€evidence€on€the€groundsÏthat€the€roadblock€was€unconstitutional€because€there€was€no€suspicion€that€aÏcrime€had€been€committed€before€the€stop€and€the€detention€was€anÏunreasonable€seizure.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€motion€and€found€that€theÏroadblock€had€been€established€and€supervised€by€Lt.€Hill€in€accordance€withÏTennessee€Department€of€Safety€General€Order€410€for€the€purpose€ofÏdetecting€unlicensed€drivers.€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€found€that€neither€GeneralÏOrder€410€nor€any€other€General€Order€governing€roadblocks€was€in€effect€atÏthe€time€of€this€stop.× ƒD ××  ×€€Moreover,€the€court€observed€that€the€roadblock€in€thisÏcase€was€operated€from€midnight€to€2:00€a.m.,€that€a€mobile€breathalyser€unitÍwas€on€the€scene€for€use€during€the€roadblock,€and€that€virtually€every€officer€atÏthe€scene€was€a€member€of€the€City€or€County€DUI€task€force.€€Accordingly,€theÏcourt€held€that€the€evidence€preponderated€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€thatÏthe€roadblock€was€established€under€General€Order€410€to€detect€unlicensedÏdrivers.€€ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€determination€that€theÏevidence€in€this€record€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€theÏroadblock€was€established€to€detect€unlicensed€motorists.€€We€thereforeÏaddress€the€constitutionality€of€the€stop€in€this€case€as€a€sobriety€roadblock.× ƒE ××  ×€ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONSTITUTIONAL€FRAMEWORKó óóóÌà àWe€begin€our€review€by€examining€the€constitutional€protectionsÏimplicated€when€a€citizen€is€stopped€at€a€highway€roadblock.€€The€FourthÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€ð ð[t]he€right€of€the€peopleÏto€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers,€and€effects,€òòagainstÏunreasonable€searches€and€seizuresóó,€shall€not€be€violated€....ðð€€(emphasisÏadded).€€Similarly,€article€I,€section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides:à àÌÓÓÌà8 àUnreasonable€searches€and€seizures„„€General€warrants.„„€ThatÏthe€people€shall€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers,€andÏpossessions,€òòfrom€unreasonable€searches€and€seizuresóó;€and€thatÏgeneral€warrants,€whereby€an€officer€may€be€commanded€toÏsearch€suspected€places,€without€evidence€of€the€fact€committed,Íor€to€seize€any€person€or€persons€not€named,€whose€offenses€areÏnot€particularly€described€and€supported€by€evidence,€areÏdangerous€to€liberty€and€ought€not€to€be€granted.ÌÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àThe€essence€of€the€prohibition€against€unreasonable€searches€andÏseizures€under€the€Fourth€Amendment€is€to€ð ðsafeguard€the€privacy€and€securityÏof€individuals€against€arbitrary€invasions€of€government€officials.ðð€€òòCamara€v.ÏMunicipal€Courtóó,€387€U.S.€523,€528,€87€S.Ct.€1727,€1730,€18€L.Ed.2d€930Ï(1967).€A€similar€purpose€was€noted€in€òòSneed€v.€Stateóó,€221€Tenn.€6,€13,€423ÏS.W.2d€857,€860€(1968),€where€this€Court€observed€that€ð ðarticle€I,€section€7€isÏidentical€in€intent€and€purpose€with€the€Fourth€Amendment,ðð€and€that€federalÏcases€applying€the€Fourth€Amendment€should€be€regarded€as€ð ðparticularlyÏpersuasive.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€293€(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌà àThe€constitutionality€of€sobriety€roadblocks€is€a€question€of€firstÏimpression€for€this€Court,× ƒF ××  ×€and€there€is€no€settled€body€of€state€constitutional€lawÏdirectly€on€point,€although€there€are€a€number€of€state€court€cases€which€areÏinstructive.€€Thus,€in€reviewing€the€constitutionality€of€stopping€motoristsÏpursuant€to€a€highway€roadblock,€cases€construing€the€Fourth€Amendment€areÍpersuasive.€€Nonetheless,€because€our€review€and€our€decision€are€basedÏsolely€on€the€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€we€recognize,€as€weÏhave€in€the€past,€€that€article€I,€section€7€may€afford€citizens€of€Tennessee€evenÏgreater€protection.€€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€430€(Tenn.€1989);€òòMiller€v.ÏStateóó,€584€S.W.2d€€758€(Tenn.€1979).ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONSTITUTIONALITY€OF€SOBRIETY€ROADBLOCKSóóó óÌà àWe€continue€our€analysis€by€examining€how€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€has€interpreted€the€Fourth€Amendment€requirement€that€a€seizure€mustÏbe€reasonable.€€In€general,€ð ðwhenever€a€police€officer€accosts€an€individual€andÏrestrains€his€freedom€to€walk€away,€he€has€ððseizedðð€that€personðð€for€the€purposeÏof€Fourth€Amendment€analysis.€€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€16,€88€S.Ct.€1868,Ï1877,€20€L.Ed.2d€889€(1968).Ì€€Ìà àObviously,€a€formal€arrest€is€a€seizure€of€the€person€and€to€be€consideredÏreasonable,€it€must€be€founded€upon€probable€cause€to€believe€a€person€hasÏcommitted€a€criminal€offense.€€Whether€probable€cause€is€present€dependsÏupon€whether€the€facts€and€circumstances€and€reliable€information€known€to€theÏpolice€officer€at€the€time€of€the€arrest€ð ðwere€sufficient€to€warrant€a€prudent€man€inÏbelieving€that€the€[individual]€had€committed€an€offense.ðð€€òòBeck€v.€Ohioóó,€379ÏU.S.€89,€91,€85€S.Ct.€223,€225,€13€L.Ed.2d€142€(1964).€ÌÌà àThe€Fourth€Amendment€is€also€implicated€in€encounters€between€policeÏofficers€and€citizens€that€do€not€amount€to€full„scale€arrests.€€In€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,Íòòsupraóó,€for€example,€the€Supreme€Court€stressed€that€ð ð[i]t€is€quite€plain€that€theÏFourth€Amendment€governs€ððseizuresðð€of€the€person€which€do€not€eventuate€in€aÏtrip€to€the€station€house€and€prosecution€for€the€crime€„„€ððarrestsðð€in€traditionalÏterminology.ðð€€Accordingly,€the€Court€held€that€in€some€cases,€an€officer€mayÏbriefly€detain€an€individual€with€less€than€probable€cause€so€long€as€he€or€sheÏhas€a€reasonable€suspicion,€based€on€ð ðspecific€and€articulable€facts,ðð€that€aÏcrime€has€been€or€is€about€to€be€committed.€€392€U.S.€at€16,€21,€88€S.Ct.€atÏ1877,€1880.€€This€so„called€ð ðinvestigatory€stop,ðð€which€is€less€intrusive€than€aÏfull„scale€arrest,€may€be€made€upon€a€ð ðreasonable€suspicionðð€of€criminalÏactivity,€which€is€ð ða€less€demanding€standard€than€probable€cause.ðð€òòAlabama€v.ÏWhiteóó,€496€U.S.€325,€330,€110€S.Ct.€2412,€2416,€110€L.Ed.2d€301€(1990).€€Ì€€€Ìà àIn€analyzing€the€reasonableness€of€a€seizure€less€intrusive€than€aÏtraditional€arrest€in€later€cases,€the€Supreme€Court,€as€it€did€in€òòTerryóó,€balancedÏthe€ð ðpublic€interest€against€the€Fourth€Amendment€interest€of€the€individual.ðð€Ï392€U.S.€at€20„21,€88€S.Ct.€at€1879;€òòUnited€States€v.€Brignoni„Ponceóó,€422€U.S.Ï873,€95€S.€Ct.€2574,€45€L.Ed.2d€607€(1975).€€The€balancing€test€cited€in€òòTerryóóÏstemmed€from€òòCamara€v.€Municipal€Courtóó,€òòsupraóó,€in€which€the€Court€weighedÏthree€significant€factors€in€invalidating€warrantless€administrative€searches€ofÏbuildings€to€detect€conditions€hazardous€to€public€health€and€safety:€the€publicÏinterest€to€be€achieved,€the€ability€to€achieve€the€public€interest,€and€theÏinvasion€caused€to€the€citizenððs€privacy.€€387€U.S.€at€534,€87€S.Ct.€at€1733.ÌÌà àThis€balancing€approach€was€applied€to€a€fixed€checkpoint€stop€for€theÏfirst€time€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Martinez„Fuerteóó,€428€U.S.€543,€96€S.Ct.€3074,€49ÏL.Ed.2d€1116€(1976).€€There,€the€court€applied€the€balancing€test€to€uphold€fixedÏcheckpoints€near€the€border€at€which€all€vehicles€were€stopped.€€The€courtÏdetermined€that€these€checkpoints€served€a€strong€government€interest€byÏenabling€law€enforcement€officers€to€detect€illegal€aliens€and€that€the€intrusionsÏon€motorists€caused€by€the€checkpoint€stop€were€slight.€€While€acknowledgingÏthat€the€stops€constituted€ð ðseizures,ðð€the€court€concluded€that€the€checkpointsÏadvanced€the€law€enforcement€interest€to€a€greater€degree€than€stops€requiringÏindividualized,€reasonable€suspicion.€ÌÌà àLater,€òòMichigan€v.€Sitzóó,€496€U.S.€444,€453,€110€S.Ct.€2481,€2485,€110ÏL.Ed.2d€412€(1990),€was€the€first€case€where€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏspecifically€applied€the€balancing€analysis€and€held€that€a€stateððs€use€of€aÏhighway€sobriety€checkpoint€does€not€òòperseóóviolate€the€Fourth€Amendment€toÏthe€United€States€Constitution.€€The€roadblock€challenged€in€that€case€wasÏestablished€pursuant€to€a€sobriety€checkpoint€pilot€program€developed€by€theÏMichigan€Department€of€State€Police.€€As€provided€under€the€guidelines,€allÏvehicles€passing€through€the€checkpoint€were€stopped€and€their€drivers€brieflyÏexamined€for€signs€of€intoxication.€€In€cases€where€a€checkpoint€officer€detectedÏsigns€of€intoxication,€the€motorist€was€directed€to€a€location€out€of€the€traffic€flowÏwhere€an€officer€checked€the€motoristððs€driversðð€license€and€registration€and,€ifÏwarranted,€conducted€further€sobriety€tests€and€made€an€arrest.€€All€otherÏdrivers€were€permitted€to€resume€their€journey.€€The€checkpoint€was€operatedÍfor€75€minutes,€during€which€26€vehicles€were€stopped.€€The€average€delay€wasÏ25€seconds€for€each€vehicle.€€Two€motorists€were€detained€for€field€sobrietyÏtesting€and€one€was€arrested.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌò òà àó óAfter€observing€that€the€roadblock€stop€was€a€ð ðseizureðð€under€the€FourthÏAmendment,€the€òòSitzóó€court€reviewed€the€three„part€balancing€analysis€appliedÏin€òòBrown€v.€Texasóó,€òòsupraóó,€and€other€earlier€cases.€€The€court€said€that€theÏreasonableness€of€a€seizure€which€is€less€intrusive€than€a€traditional€arrestÏdepends€on€a€balancing€of€ð ðthe€gravity€of€the€public€concerns€served€by€theÏseizure,€the€degree€to€which€the€seizure€advances€the€public€interest,€and€theÏseverity€of€the€interference€with€individual€liberty.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€443€U.S.€at€50„51,€99ÏS.Ct.€at€2640.€€The€òòBrownóó€court€explained€the€basis€for€the€balancing€test:ÌÓÓÌà8 àA€central€concern€in€balancing€these€competing€considerations€inÏa€variety€of€settings€has€been€to€assure€that€an€individualððsÏreasonable€expectation€of€privacy€is€not€subject€to€arbitraryÏinvasions€solely€at€the€unfettered€discretion€of€officers€in€the€field.Ï[Citations€omitted].€€To€this€end,€the€Fourth€Amendment€requiresÏthat€a€seizure€must€be€based€on€specific,€objective€facts€indicatingÏthat€societyððs€legitimate€interests€require€the€seizure€of€theÏparticular€individual,€or€that€the€seizure€must€be€carried€outÏpursuant€to€a€plan€embodying€explicit,€neutral€limitations€on€theÏconduct€of€individual€officers.€€ÌÌÌòòÓÓIdóó.ÌÌà àApplying€the€public€interest€test€to€sobriety€roadblocks,€the€òòSitzóó€courtÏemphasized€the€magnitude€of€the€drunk€driving€problem€and€the€statesðð€strong€Ïinterest€in€solving€it.€€Reviewing€the€second€part€of€the€analysis€„€the€degree€toÍwhich€the€seizure€advanced€the€public€interest€„€the€court€stressed€that€theÏempirical€data€showed€1.6%€of€the€motorists€stopped€at€the€MichiganÏcheckpoint€had€been€arrested€for€driving€under€the€influence.€€The€court€alsoÏobserved€that€an€expert€witness€had€testified€that€studies€of€checkpoints€used€inÏother€states€revealed€that€about€1%€of€all€motorists€stopped€were€arrested€forÏdrunk€driving.€€òòIdóó.,€496€U.S.€at€455,€110€S.Ct.€at€2487„2488.× ƒG ××  ×€ÌÌà àFinally,€with€regard€to€the€individual€liberty€analysis,€the€court,€stressingÏthat€the€checkpoints€were€selected€pursuant€to€guidelines€and€that€uniformedÏpolice€officers€stopped€every€car,€concluded€that€ð ðthe€measure€of€the€intrusionÏon€[law€abiding]€motorists€stopped€briefly€at€sobriety€checkpoints€is€slight.ðð€òòIdóó.,Ï496€U.S.€at€451„453,€110€S.Ct.€at€2486„2487.€ò ò€€ó óDissenting€in€òòSitzóó,€JusticesÏBrennan€and€Stevens€argued€that€the€majority€failed€to€analyze€whetherÏsobriety€checkpoints€advance€the€public€interest€to€any€degree€greater€thanÏtraditional€stops€based€on€suspicion€and,€therefore,€the€state€had€failed€to€showÏthat€sobriety€checkpoint€seizures€were€reasonable.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà@ àò òòòSOBRIETY€ROADBLOCKS€„„€STATE€JURISDICTIONSó óóóÌà àA€majority€of€state€courts€have€followed€the€balancing€analysis€and€haveÏconcluded€that€roadblocks€may€survive€constitutional€scrutiny€if€they€areÍoperated€under€guidelines€which€minimize€intrusiveness€and€limit€officersððÏdiscretion.× ƒH ××  ×€€ÌÌà àA€minority€of€jurisdictions,€however,€including€Michigan€after€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Courtððs€remand€in€òòMichigan€v.€Sitzóó,€òòsupraóó,€have€invalidatedÏroadblocks€under€state€constitutional€provisions.€€òòSitz€v.€Dept.€of€State€Policeóó,Ï506€N.W.2d€209€(Mich.€1993).€€These€courts,€while€stopping€short€of€holdingÏthat€all€roadblocks€are€òòperseóó€unconstitutional,€have€compared€the€effectivenessÏof€roadblocks€with€less€intrusive€law€enforcement€methods€and€have€concludedÏthat€the€stateððs€interest€in€detecting€drunken€driving€does€not€outweigh€theÏintrusion€on€individual€liberty€or€justify€departure€from€traditional€stops€requiringÏindividual€suspicion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hendersonóó,€756€P.2d€1057€(Idaho€1988);ÏòòState€v.€Churchóó,€538€So.2d€993€(La.€1989);€òòAscher€v.€Commissioner€of€PublicÏSafetyóó,€519€N.W.2d€183€(Minn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Koppelóó,€499€A.2d€977€(N.H.Ï1985);€òòState€v.€Blackburnóó,€620€N.E.2d€319€(Ohio€Mun.€1993);€òòCity€of€Seattle€v.ÏMesianióó,€755€P.2d€775€(Wash.€1988).€€One€state€court€has€held€that€roadblocksÏare€òòperseóó€unconstitutional€under€its€state€constitution.€€òòPimental€v.€Dept.€ofÏTransportationóó,€561€A.2d€1348€(R.I.€1989).€€€€ÌÌà àWhether€upholding€or€invalidating€a€sobriety€roadblock,€nearly€everyÏcourt€has€used€the€balancing€analysis€discussed€in€òòBrown€v.€Texasóó,€òòsupraóó.€ÏMoreover,€the€courts€universally€recognize€the€stateððs€significant€interest€inÏattempting€to€alleviate€the€often€tragic€consequences€of€drunk€driving.€€All€courtsÏhave€recognized€that€there€is€a€very€strong€societal€interest€in€dealing€effectivelyÏwith€the€problem€of€drunk€driving.ÌÌà àCourts€disagree,€however,€over€whether€the€state€interest€is€effectivelyÏserved€by€the€use€of€roadblocks.€€In€this€regard,€courts€upholding€roadblocksÏgenerally€refrain€from€analyzing€whether€roadblocks€are€òòmoreóó€effective€inÏadvancing€the€stateððs€interest€in€eradicating€drunk€driving€than€less€intrusiveÏmeans.× ƒI ××  ×€€Instead,€these€courts€recognize€that€roadblocks€are€effective€tools€forÏuse€in€detecting€impaired€drivers.€€Those€views€are€expressed€by€ProfessorÏLaFave:ÌÓÓÌà8 à[I]t€is€certainly€arguable€that€mere€patrol€and€stoppings€basedÏupon€the€òòTerryóó€standard€do€not€produce€what€the€òòCamaraóó€CourtÏreferred€to€as€ððacceptable€results.ðð€€For€one€thing,€even€if€aÏpatrolling€officer€is€fortunate€enough€to€be€in€the€vicinity€where€aÏdrunk€driver€is€operating€his€vehicle,€it€does€not€necessarily€followÏthat€the€driver€will€at€that€particular€time€drive€his€car€in€such€aÏfashion€as€to€create€a€reasonable€suspicion€justifying€a€stop.€€AndÍthe€chances€of€such€observation€in€the€first€place€are€rather€slight,Ïgiven€the€substantial€number€of€intoxicated€drivers€on€the€road.ÌÌÌÓÓ4€W.€LaFave,€òòSearch€and€Seizure:€A€Treatise€on€the€Fourth€Amendmentóó,€(3rdÏed.€1995),€at€692.€€Moreover,€courts€have€stressed€that€roadblocks€further€theÏstateððs€interest€not€only€by€òòdetectingóó€drunk€drivers€but€also€by€òòdeterringóó€suchÏbehavior,€particularly€when€the€roadblock€is€accompanied€by€advance€publicity.€ÏIn€òòState€ex€rel.€Ekstrom€v.€Justice€Courtóó,€663€P.2d€992,€1001€(Ariz.€1983),€theÏCourt€noted:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€efficacy€of€a€deterrent€roadblock€is€heightened€by€publicity€inÏthe€media.€.€.€.€Such€publicity€would€warn€those€using€theÏhighways€that€they€might€expect€to€find€roadblocks€designed€toÏcheck€for€sobriety;€the€warning€.€.€.€should€certainly€have€aÏconsiderable€deterring€effect€by€either€dissuading€people€fromÏtaking€ððone€more€for€the€road,ðð€persuading€them€to€drink€at€home,Ïor€inducing€them€to€take€taxicabs.€€Any€one€of€these€goals,€ifÏachieved€would€have€the€salutary€effect€of€interfering€with€theÏlethal€combination€of€alcohol€and€gasoline.€€Advance€notice€wouldÏlimit€intrusion€upon€personal€dignity€and€security€because€thoseÏbeing€stopped€would€anticipate€and€understand€what€wasÏhappening.ÌÌÓÓÌ(Feldman,€J.,€concurring).€€Accordingly,€the€effectiveness€of€roadblocks€to€detectÏand€to€deter€drunk€driving€has€led€the€majority€of€courts€to€favor€their€use.ÌÌà àFinally,€with€regard€to€the€intrusiveness€of€the€roadblock,€the€majority€ofÏcourts€have€stressed€that€roadblocks€must€be€set€up€in€accordance€with€neutral,Ïobjective€criteria€and€operated€in€a€manner€that€minimizes€intrusiveness€andÏthe€discretion€afforded€to€individual€officers.€€In€òòMichigan€v.€Sitzóó,€òòsupraóó,€forÏexample,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€placed€emphasis€on€the€fact€that€theÍroadblock€was€operated€under€written€guidelines€setting€forth€proceduresÏgoverning€checkpoint€operation,€site€selection,€and€publicity€that€left€virtually€noÏdiscretion€to€individual€officers€at€the€scene,€and€in€òòBrown€v.€Texasóó,€òòsupraóó,€theÏcourt€required€a€plan€embodying€explicit,€neutral€limitations€on€the€conduct€ofÏindividual€officers.€€As€suggested€by€one€commentator,€a€ð ðpolice€procedure€isÏless€threatening€to€[constitutional]€values€when€the€discretionary€authority€of€theÏpolice€(and€thus€the€risk€of€arbitrary€action)€is€kept€at€an€absolute€minimum.ðð€ÏMoreover,€ð ða€police€procedure€constitutes€less€of€an€imposition€onÏ[constitutional]€interests€if€that€procedure€has€an€appearance€of€regularity€to€itÏand€is€undertaken€with€sufficient€advance€noticeðð€not€only€to€the€public€but€alsoÏto€the€approaching€motorist.€€LaFave,€òòsupraóó,€at€696,€702„704.€€ÌÌà àSeveral€state€courts€have€developed€guidelines€that€govern€theÏquestions€of€minimizing€intrusiveness€and€limiting€discretion.€€Among€them€areÏIowa,€California,€and€Kansas.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Loydóó,€530€N.W.2d€708€(Iowa€1995);ÏòòIngersoll€v.€Palmeróó,€743€P.2d€1299€(Cal.€1987);€òòState€v.€Deskinsóó,€673€P.2d€1174Ï(Kan.€1983).€€The€guidelines€include€supervisory€authority€which€carefullyÏtargets€the€time€and€location€of€roadblocks€and€establishes€neutral€proceduresÏfor€their€operation.€€They€also€include€adequate€warnings,€advance€publicity,Ïminimizing€length€and€nature€of€detention,€adequate€safety€precautions,€and€theÏavailability€of€less€intrusive€methods€for€combating€the€problem.ÌÌà àA€list€of€relevant€factors,€obviously,€can€take€any€length€or€form.€€NotÏevery€factor€must€weigh€in€favor€of€the€state€to€uphold€a€given€roadblock,€nor€isÍany€single€one€dispositive€of€the€issue.€€Instead,€the€overriding€question€isÏwhether€the€roadblock€was€established€and€operated€in€a€constitutionallyÏreasonable€manner€that€minimized€the€intrusion€on€individuals€and€limited€theÏdiscretion€afforded€to€officers€at€the€scene.ÌÌà@ àò òòòANALYSIS€UNDER€THE€TENNESSEE€CONSTITUTIONó óóóÌà àAs€previously€noted,€the€use€of€sobriety€roadblocks€is€a€question€of€firstÏimpression€for€this€Court€and€there€is€no€settled€body€of€state€constitutional€lawÏon€the€issue.€€We€therefore€adopt€the€balancing€test€outlined€in€òòMichigan€v.€Sitzóó,Ïòòsupraóó,€as€the€appropriate€constitutional€standard,€so€that€when€a€seizure€occurs,€Ìan€individualððs€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy€is€not€subject€to€arbitraryÏinvasions€solely€at€the€unfettered€discretion€of€officers€in€the€field,€and€theÏseizure€is€carried€out€pursuant€to€a€plan€embodying€explicit,€neutral€limitationsÏon€the€conduct€of€individual€officers.Ìà àWe€recognize€the€Stateððs€compelling€interest€in€detecting€and€deterringÏmotorists€who€drive€while€under€the€influence€of€alcohol.€€The€statistics€areÏoverwhelming.€€As€the€court€noted€in€òòSitzóó,€more€deaths€and€injuries€haveÏresulted€from€such€motor€vehicle€accidents€on€our€nationððs€highways€than€fromÏall€the€wars€this€country€has€fought.€€496€U.S.€at€456,€110€S.Ct.€at€2488Ï(Blackmun,€J.,€concurring).€ÌÌà àWe,€therefore,€join€the€majority€of€jurisdictions€who€have€concluded€thatÏthe€use€of€a€sobriety€roadblock€may€be€used€to€advance€the€Stateððs€compellingÏinterest€provided€it€is€established€and€operated€in€a€manner€that€minimizesÍintrusion€and€limits€discretion.€€€In€this€regard,€we€observe€that€the€criteriaÏdelineated€in€òòLoydóó,€òòIngersollóó,€and€òòDeskinsóó€provide€the€necessary€framework€forÏanalysis.€€ÌÌà àWe€are€convinced€that€roadblocks€are€effective€tools€in€advancing€theÏStateððs€interest€in€solving€a€serious€public€danger.€€We€agree€with€the€òòSitzóó€CourtÏthat€we€should€not€determine€which€among€reasonable€law€enforcementÏapproaches€is€the€most€effective.€€We€leave€that€decision€to€politicallyÏaccountable€public€officials€who€are€responsible€for€limited€public€resources.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€as€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€observed,€someÏaspects€of€the€roadblock€were€consistent€with€constitutional€standards.€€ForÏexample,€the€officers€stopped€all€cars€traveling€in€both€directions;€when€theÏtraffic€became€congested,€motorists€were€permitted€to€pass€through€theÏroadblock.€€The€discretion€of€the€individual€officers€at€the€scene,€therefore,€wasÏlimited€as€to€what€motorists€were€to€be€stopped.€€Similarly,€safety€measuresÏwere€apparently€taken€to€warn€approaching€motorists€of€the€roadblock.€€TheÏroadblock€was€set€up€in€a€safe€and€visible€area€and€consisted€of€uniformedÏofficers€and€marked€patrol€cars€with€flashing€blue€lights.€ÌÌà àAll€of€the€remaining€evidence,€however,€indicated€that€this€roadblock€wasÏnot€established€and€operated€in€a€manner€that€was€consistent€with€article€I,Ïsection€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€First€and€foremost,€the€decision€to€setÏup€a€roadblock€was€made€by€an€officer€in€the€field.€€Likewise,€the€site€selectedÍfor€the€roadblock€and€the€procedure€to€be€used€in€operating€the€roadblock€wereÏmatters€left€to€the€discretion€of€an€officer€in€the€field.€€No€supervisory€authorityÏwas€sought€or€obtained,€and€no€administrative€decisions€were€made€withÏregard€to€these€critical€factors.€€The€State€maintains€on€appeal€that€the€absenceÏof€formal,€supervisory€participation€was€of€ð ðlittle€weightðð€since€Lt.€Hill€supervisedÏthe€roadblock€at€the€scene.€€We€disagree.€€Virtually€every€court€has€emphasizedÏthe€importance€of€limiting€the€discretion€of€police€officers€at€the€scene.€€WeÏagree€with€the€observation€of€the€Pennsylvania€Supreme€Court€that€€ÌÓÓÌà8 àthe€possibility€of€arbitrary€roadblocks€can€be€significantly€curtailedÏby€the€institution€of€certain€safeguards.€€First€the€very€decision€toÏhold€a€drunk„driver€roadblock,€as€well€as€the€decision€as€to€its€timeÏand€place,€should€be€matters€reserved€for€prior€administrativeÏapproval,€thus€removing€the€determination€of€those€matters€fromÏthe€discretion€of€police€officers€in€the€field.€.€.€.€Additionally,€theÏquestion€of€which€vehicles€to€stop€at€the€roadblock€should€not€beÏleft€to€the€unfettered€discretion€of€police€officers€at€the€scene,€butÏinstead€should€be€in€accordance€with€objective€standards€prefixedÏby€administrative€decision.ÌÌÌÓÓòòCom.€v.€Tarbertóó,€535€A.2d€at€1043.€€€Lt.€Hillððs€concessions€that€supervisory€andÏadministrative€authority€was€not€sought€makes€it€crystal€clear€that€properÏmeasures€were€not€taken€to€prevent€the€unfettered€discretion€of€officers€at€theÏscene.ÌÌà àThe€lack€of€administrative€or€supervisory€decision€making€was€alsoÏevidenced€by€the€absence€of€publicity€surrounding€the€roadblock.× ƒJ ××  ×€€We€believeÍadvance€publicity€furthers€the€deterrence€rationale€for€the€use€of€a€sobrietyÏroadblock.€€One€state€court€has€observed:€ð ðIt€is€the€publicity€about€roadblocksÏ[that]€is€the€chief€means€of€deterring€driving€while€intoxicated.ðð€€òòState€v.€Koppelóó,Ï499€A.2d€at€982.€€The€Stateððs€contention€that€advanced€publicity€wasÏunnecessary€because€the€roadblock€was€well„marked€at€the€scene€completelyÏignores€the€deterrence€rationale.€€Accordingly,€this€omission€in€the€present€caseÏlikewise€weighs€against€the€reasonableness€of€the€roadblock€used€to€stop€theÏdefendant.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€the€absence€of€supervisory€or€administrative€decision„making€inÏthis€case€may€have€contributed€to€creating€an€issue€as€to€the€purpose€of€theÏroadblock.€€The€testimony€in€the€record€is€that€officers€set€up€this€roadblock€forÏthe€purpose€of€checking€driversðð€licenses€in€accordance€with€General€Order€410Ïof€the€Department€of€Safety.€€All€the€remaining€evidence€in€the€record,€however,Ïindicates€that€the€actual€purpose€was€the€detection€of€alcohol„impairedÏmotorists.€€We€do€not€decide€whether€the€roadblock€was€a€ð ðsubterfugeðð€or€aÏð ðpretextðð€for€investigating€drunk€drivers,€or€address€the€implications€that€mightÏfollow€such€a€finding.× ƒK ××  ×€€Instead,€this€discrepancy€in€the€proof€is€a€reflection€of€theÏoverall€failure€by€law€enforcement€officers€to€establish€this€roadblock€in€aÏmanner€consistent€with€administrative€and€supervisory€oversight.€€We€conclude,Ítherefore,€that€this€likewise€is€a€factor€that€weighs€against€the€reasonableness€ofÏthis€particular€roadblock.ÌÌà àThe€dissent€agrees€with€the€constitutional€principles€we€have€cited€butÏdisagrees€with€the€result€we€have€reached.€€The€primary€objection€is€to€ourÏconclusion€that€the€absence€of€supervisory€and€administrative€authorityÏweighed€against€the€reasonableness€of€this€roadblock.€€The€dissent€insteadÏinfers€from€the€gathering€of€county€and€city€law€enforcement€officers€at€theÏscene€that€the€roadblock€was€conducted€with€administrative€oversight.€€ÌÌà àWe€respectfully€disagree.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€this€record€as€to€theÏsupervisory€and€administrative€procedures€to€be€followed€in€establishing€aÏroadblock.€€Moreover,€Lt.€Hill€did€not€testify€that€he€sought€or€obtained€any€typeÏof€approval€from€any€supervisory€officer;€had€he€done€so,€he€could€simply€haveÏtestified€as€to€the€authority€he€was€given€and€the€procedures€he€followed.€ÏInstead,€his€testimony€is€clear€that€he€alone€made€the€decision€to€set€up€thisÏroadblock;€he€alone€determined€the€manner€of€its€operation;€and€he€alone,€asÏan€officer€in€the€field,€supervised€it€with€unrestrained€discretion.€€That€heÏapparently€was€able€to€persuade€city€and€county€personnel€to€assist€in€theÏoperation€is€not,€in€our€view,€probative€of€the€overall€supervisory€oversight€andÏadministrative€procedure.€€Accordingly,€the€evidence€in€the€record€simply€doesÏnot€support€the€attenuated€inference€drawn€by€the€dissent.€€€€€ÌÌ€à àà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌà àWe€conclude€that€a€highway€roadblock€which€is€established€andÏoperated€in€accordance€with€predetermined€guidelines€and€supervisoryÏauthority€that€minimize€the€risk€of€arbitrary€intrusions€on€individuals€and€limit€theÏdiscretion€of€law€enforcement€officers€at€the€scene€is€valid€under€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.€€We,€however,€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€theÏroadblock€in€this€case€was€not€conducted€in€accordance€with€such€restrictionsÏand€constituted€an€unreasonable€seizure€under€article€I,€section€7€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€one„half€to€the€State€ofÏTennessee€and€one„half€to€the€defendant/cross„appellant,€Sarah€HuttonÏDowney.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àE.€RILEY€ANDERSON,€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌò òConcur:ó ó€€ÌBirch,€C.J.€ÌReid,€J.€and€O'Brien,€Sp.J.ÌÌDrowota,€J.,€concurring€and€dissenting€„€see€separate€Concurring/DissentingÏà àà àà àà àà àà àœOpinionÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ›Ñ , ÑÑ ` ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ  ÑÑ€4ÑÑ7€8÷XXdæXXdæ7Ñà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌœßJ€AL;+'b|` Å `€@ÿJß›à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àAppellant/Cross„Appellee,à àà à)à àFiled:€€May€12,€1997Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€CRIMINALà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSARAH€HUTTON€DOWNEY,à àà à)à à€Hon.€Stephen€M.€Bevilà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€€€€ÏJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee/Cross„Appellant.à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03S01„9604„CC„00039ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òCONCURRING/DISSENTING€OPINIONó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€majority€holds€that€a€sobriety€roadblock€is€valid€under€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€so€long€as€it€is€established€and€operated€in€accordance€withÏpredetermined€guidelines€and€supervisory€authority€that€minimize€the€risk€ofÏarbitrary€intrusions€on€individuals€and€limit€the€discretion€of€law€enforcementÏofficers€at€the€scene.€€According€to€the€majority,€matters€which€must€beÏdetermined€by€prior€administrative€action€to€validate€a€sobriety€roadblock€include,Íthe€decision€to€hold€the€roadblock,€the€selection€of€the€time€and€place€for€theÏroadblock,€and€the€designation€of€which€vehicles€will€be€stopped.€€ConsideringÏthose€factors,€the€majority€concludes€that€the€sobriety€roadblock€in€this€case€wasÏconstitutionally€infirm€because€an€officer€in€the€field,€rather€than€administrativeÏpersonnel,€made€the€decision€to€set€up€the€roadblock€and€selected€the€site€andÏtime€for€its€operation.ÌÌà àI€agree€with€the€majority€as€to€the€general€principles€of€law€governing€aÏsobriety€roadblock.€€To€be€constitutionally€valid,€a€sobriety€roadblock€must€beÏestablished€and€conducted€in€accordance€with€a€prefixed,€objective€plan€whichÏlimits€unfettered€police€discretion€and€minimizes€the€risk€of€arbitrary€intrusions.€IÏwrite€separately€to€express€my€disagreement€with€the€majorityððs€conclusion€thatÏthe€roadblock€in€this€case€lacked€administrative€oversight€and,€therefore,€wasÏconstitutionally€infirm.ÌÌà àThe€facts€of€this€case€are€permeated€with€administrative€oversight.€ÏAlthough€he€may€have€been€on€patrol€that€day,€Lt.€Hill€was€not€simply€an€officer€inÍthe€field€who€arbitrarily€decided€to€have€a€roadblock.€€That€Lt.€Hill€had€obtainedÏprior€administrative€approval€to€conduct€a€roadblock€on€August€8,€1992,€at€12:00Ïa.m.,€on€œHixson›€Pike,€in€Hamilton€County,€Tennessee,€is€evidenced€by€the€factÏthat,€in€addition€to€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol,€three€different€lawÏenforcement€agencies€participated€in€the€roadblock€„€„€the€Chattanooga€PoliceÏDepartment€DUI€task€force,€the€Hamilton€County€DUI€task€force,€and€auxiliaryÏofficers€of€the€Hamilton€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€€Certainly,€it€was€advanceÏplanning€and€not€mere€coincidence€which€brought€four€different€groups€of€lawÏenforcement€officials€together€on€the€same€day,€at€the€same€time,€and€at€theÏsame€location€to€conduct€a€roadblock.€€The€majority€characterizes€the€absence€ofÏpublicity€surrounding€this€roadblock€as€evidence€of€the€lack€of€administrative€orÏsupervisory€decision€making.€€While€it€is€feasible€to€conclude,€as€did€the€majority,Ïthat€prior€publicity€of€a€sobriety€roadblock€is€a€deterrent€to€potential€drunk€drivers,Ïanother€equally€feasible€conclusion€is€that€the€risk€of€being€arrested€at€anÏunpublicized€sobriety€roadblock€is€also€a€deterrent€to€potential€drunk€drivers.€ÏSuch€being€the€case,€the€majorityððs€characterization€of€absence€of€prior€publicityÏas€evidence€of€a€lack€of€administrative€decision€making€is€merely€speculation,Ísince€administrative€officials€legitimately€could€have€decided€that€anÏunpublicized€roadblock€would€have€a€greater€deterrent€effect.× ƒM ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€majority€opinion€acknowledges€that€the€roadblock€otherwise€compliedÏwith€constitutional€standards.€€The€officers€stopped€all€cars€traveling€in€bothÏdirections;€when€the€traffic€became€congested,€motorists€were€permitted€to€passÏthrough€the€roadblock;€the€discretion€of€individual€officers€at€the€scene€wasÏlimited;€safety€measures€were€taken€to€warn€approaching€cars€of€the€roadblock;Ïthe€site€selected€for€the€roadblock€was€visible;€and€the€procedure€used€for€theÏroadblock€was€safe,€involving€uniformed€police€officers€and€marked€patrol€cars,Ïwith€flashing€blue€lights.€€Because€the€facts€of€this€case€support€the€conclusionÏthat€Lt.€Hill€had€obtained€prior€administrative€approval€to€conduct€the€roadblock,Ïand€because€this€roadblock€was€conducted€in€a€manner€which€limited€unfetteredÏpolice€discretion€and€minimized€arbitrary€intrusions,€the€roadblock,€in€my€view,Ïcomplied€with€constitutional€standards.€€ÌÌà àTherefore,€I€respectfully€dissent€from€the€majorityððs€decision€and€wouldÏreverse€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€judgment€and€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denialÏof€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA€III,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÓÓÌÌ̜ԀÔÔ€Ô›