WPC` X.W h?npHT 鲽i}P㉄ehϏpFNbƍz/ sl%xf'ޫ12oI3Rf} 3MO0 (~mJOYI[#L h!W+h;s}"rDTq{^J|cysAIq0YHxx|78?ahb:lnQ i%J+M[/68 p]>Ғm{WңOsu ]#Y+cvÿJ\#ǁqnG6zf^ގUg1=4Wsn$Eo(6~_u:8_˺2*zNZίx'q =U)|`Z>$ZP93ntT[3rY&cFQW?ʺ4j#| %=^ C 0OwU:N4) z= m`&NEd"f"f"f"f"f"U@n" ""r,..246 ::EEBKKK 0D Q Q QbNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQNQuVQVQVQ 0TTTT BUU 0U D5yV D-V 0KVV AS&WyW 0?X 0DX A'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y'Y AYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYqZHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0++s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularB+:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU  R0$      1  7uԀ  _WealsograntedpermissiontoappealtodecidewhetherTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections5550351(a)  and407103(c)_are_ԀunconstitutionalbecausetheyallowofficersoftheTennesseeHighwayPatroltorandomlystop t motoriststocheckdriverslicenses.WeagreewiththeCourtofCriminalAppealsinthiscasethatthedecisionofthe 8 UnitedStatesSupremeCourtinDelaware_v._ԀProuse,440U.S.648(1979),andouropinioninRobertsonv.State,184 L Tenn.277,198S.W.2d633(1947),seemtosubstantiallyunderminetheconstitutionalproprietyofthesetwostatutes.  SeealsoStatev.McCulloch,906S.W.2d3,5(Tenn.Crim.App.1995)( [I]tiswellestablishedthatbaselessrandom  vehiclestopsforthemerepurposeofcheckinglicenseandregistrationinformationareimpermissibleunderbothstate H  andfederallaw.).Nevertheless,becausethisissuewasnotraisedineitherofthelowercourts,wedeclinetofully  \ addressithere.Moreover,applicationoftheplainerrordoctrineisnotappropriateinthiscasebecauseconstructionof   thesestatutesisnotnecessarytoaccomplishsubstantialjustice"thiscasedoes_notinvolverandom_Ԁstopsbyofficersof    theTennesseeHighwayPatrol.SeeState_v._ԀSmith,24S.W.3d274,282(Tenn.2000).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  R0$      9  7uԀ  _Thoughadmittedlyunclear,therecordseemstoindicatethatLieutenantHilleithercontinuedaroadblock  alreadyinoperationorthathewasthelastofficertoarriveonthescenetostarttheoperationofanalreadyestablished t checkpoint.LieutenantHillstestimonyindicatesthatLieutenantPhillipswastheofficerresponsibleforinitially 8 arrangingandsettinguptheroadblockandthatPhillipscouldnotestablisharoadblockwithoutapprovalfromhigher L authorities.BecauseDowneyrequiresthattheofficerestablishingtheroadblockobtainprioradministrativeapproval,  LieutenantHillsoperationofanalreadyestablishedroadblockisseeminglyirrelevanttoprovethepresenceofprior  administrativeapproval.  R0$      10  7uԀ  _Atthesuppressionhearing,LieutenantHilladmittedthatthepracticeofcountydeputiesstoppingcarsto  checklicenses,evenataroadblock,iscontrarytoGeneralOrder410andthatsuchapracticeisalsocontrarytohis t understandingofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections407103(b)and5550351(a).Thefactthathepermittedthe 8 roadblocktocontinueoperationinviolationofseveralstatutesisstrongevidencethattheroadblockwasnotconducted L withadequatesupervision. (uH Z(Times New Roman  R0$      13  7uԀ  _Indeed,wetakenoticeofthefactthatthesobrietyroadblocks,whichwepermittedinDowneyonlyunder  heightenedconstitutionalrequirements,arebeingoperatedinsomecasesundertheguiseof driverslicense t checkpointswithoutregardtoDowney.Forexample,inState_v._ԀSteward,No.M1999-01284-CCA-R3-CD,2000WL 8 1246436(Tenn.Crim.App._filed_ԀatNashville,Aug.30,f  g 2000),theCourtofCriminalAppealsnotedthefollowingcandid L testimonyfromanofficerwhoparticipatedina _drivers_Ԁlicensecheckpoint:  8   ` THECOURT:Trooper,whydidSergeantRay,Isuppose,decidetoconductonekindof H  roadblockinsteadoftheother? \   8   ` [Trooper]McALLISTER:Usually,allweholdisthetrafficenforcement-typeroadblock.   Thesobrietyroadblocks,[underGeneralOrder]410.1,require[]aminimumofsixofficersandthat    thecolonelpre-approveitfivedayspriortothat.X     8   ` THECOURT:Soyoujustdecidednottodothatandyouregoingtodotheotherkind[of  l  roadblocks]andcatchthesamepeople? 0    8   ` McALLISTER:Ivebeenonthe[force]fortwoyears,allIveeverheldisatraffic   enforcement-typeroadblock.h    Weareunsurehowlawenforcementofficershavecometobelievethatdriverslicenseroadblocksmaybeoperatedwith @  lessconcernforconstitutionalrequirementsthansobrietyroadblocks.ArticleI,section7certainlymakesnodistinction,   andwenotethattheroadblockinDowneyitselfwasnominallya_drivers_Ԁlicensecheckpoint.Tobesure,noauthority x  fromthisCourtexistsforthepropositionthatdriverslicensecheckpointsmaybeoperatedunderdifferentandlessened < constitutionalstandardsmerelybecauseofthelabelattachedtothem.  " ' tg0tg .     R0$      2  7uԀ  _InsupportofthecompellingnatureoftheinterestatstakeinDowney,wefoundthattheStatesinterestin  detectinganddeterringdrunkdriverswasdirectlytiedtohighwaysafetybecauseoperationofvehicleswhileunderthe t influenceofalcoholhadresultedinmoredeathsandinjuries thanfromallthewarsthiscountryhasfought.Insupport 8 ofthesheermagnitudeoftheDUIproblem,theCourtnotedthe overwhelmingstatisticalevidenceoftheproblem,the L factthatthelegislaturehasincreasedthepenaltiesforDUI atnearlyeverysession,andanecdotalevidencefromdaily  newspaperandtelevisionaccountsofthe carnageandtragedyofdrunkdriving.  R0$      3  7uԀ  __Thisrequiredshowingappliesonlytosuspicionlessstopsatinvestigatory,nonemergencyroadblocks.We  donotaddresstherequiredshowingforother_checkpoints,_Ԁ8 @ suchasthoseestablishedforapprehendingfleeingfelonsor t forfixedweighandinspectionstations.  R0$      4  7uԀ  ____See,_Ԁe.g.,State_v._ԀSteward,No.M1999-01284-CCA-R3-CD,2000WL1246436(Tenn.Crim.App.filedat  Nashville,Aug.18,2000);Statev.Hagy,No.03C01-9505-CR-00152,1995WL712355,(Tenn.Crim.App.filedat t Knoxville,Dec.5,1995).  R0$      12  7uԀ  _Thetrialcourtmadenofindingoftheprimarypurposeofthisroadblock,andweneednotdoso_here_.On  appeal,though,theprevailingpartyatthesuppressionhearingisentitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidence, t State_v._ԀOdom,928S.W.2d18,23(Tenn.1996),_and_Ԁasnoproofexiststothecontrary,areasonableinferencearisesthat 8 thetimeandplaceoftheroadblockwerenotchosensoastodetectunlicenseddrivers.Indeed,ifoneassumesthatthe L vastmajorityofcitizens,licensedorunlicensed,willnotbetravelingontheroadsat2:00a.m.,onemayinferthatthe  roadblockwasnotdesignedtodeterunlicenseddriverseither. R0$      5  7uԀ  _f  g f  g Wenote,asdoestheopinionauthoredbyJusticeDrowota,f  g Ԁthatmanyfederalandstatecasesinterpretingthe  FourthAmendmenthavefoundthatthestatemaypossessinterestsadequatetoestablishdriverslicenseroadblocks, t thoughthesecasesuniformlyreachthisconclusionwithoutthebenefitofspecificguidelinesorrequirementsofproof. 8 Theconcurringdissentingopinionsuggeststhattheshowingrequiredbythiscaseisgreaterthanthatrequiredbythe L FourthAmendment,anditisapparently puzzledbyourdecisiontocloselyadheretoDowneywhendoingso_could_  resultintheTennesseeConstitutiongrantinggreaterprotectionstoitscitizensthanwouldtheFourthAmendment.    AlthoughtheconcurringdissentingopinioncorrectlypostulatesthatArticle_I_,section7is identicalinpurpose H  andintentwiththeFourthAmendment,itoverlooksthefactthatsuchidentityofintentandpurpose doesnot  \ necessarilycorrelatetocoextensivedegreesofprotection.Infact,thisCourtsdecisionsapplyingthestateconstitution   havebeensomewhatmorerestrictivethancomparablefederalcasesinsomesearchandseizurecontexts.Planned    Parenthood_v._ԀSundquist,38S.W.3d1,13(Tenn.2000)(Drowota,J.,concurringinjudgment)(internalquotationmarks X   _omitted_).Therefore,iffollowingpriorstateconstitutionalprecedenthastheincidentaleffectofcompellingadecision  l  thatisnotnecessarilywarrantedbyfederallaw,webelieveittoberequiredbyArticleI,section7.Tobeclear,however,  0  ourdecisiontodayis_groundedsolelyinArticleI,section7and_ԀflowsfromourdecisioninDowney.Anyf  g Ԁfederalcases   citedasauthorityforourinterpretationofArticleI,section7f  Ԁareusedonlyforthepurposeofguidanceanddonot h  _themselves_Ԁcompeltheresultreachedtoday.f  g ԀSeef  g ԀMichigan_v._ԀLong,7u7u463U.S.1032,1041(1983)#7u7u #. ; R0$      6  7uԀ  _Itmaybesupposedbysomethatdriverswouldbedeterredbythechanceofencounteringunpublicized  roadblocks.Eveniftrue,itcannotbedoubtedthatdeterrenceisalwaysenhancedbypublicityandpublicknowledge t oftheroadblocks.Therefore,totheextentthattheStatereliesupondeterrenceasajustificationforroadblocks,itmust 8 takesomemeasurestoensurethatdeterrenceisactuallyaccomplished.Cf.State_v._ԀGarcia,500N.E.2d158,162(Ind. L 1986)( [T]hedeterrenteffectofsuchahighlypublicizedprogramisobvious;suchavisibleprojectisboundtoincrease  theperceivedriskofarrestinthemindsofthosedrunkdriverswhoareneverarrested.(_citing_ԀLowev.Commonwealth,  337S.E.2d273,277(Va.1985)));People_v._ԀBartley,486N.E.2d880,888(Ill.1985)( Infact,ifamajorgoalofa H  roadblocksearchingfordrunkendriversisdeterrence,thatgoalispromotedbypublicity.Themoreawaredriversare  \ thattheymaybestoppedatsucharoadblock,themorelikelytheywillbetoseekalternatemeansoftransportationwhen   theyaredrinkingortorefrainfromdrinkingwhentheyknowtheywillbedriving.). 8 R0$      7  7uԀ  _Indeed,thepeculiartimeofthis driverslicensecheckpointanditsseeminglyremotelocationcouldbe  factorsthatgiverisetoafindingthatitsprimarypurposewasnottodetectunlicenseddrivers.Cf.State_v._ԀStearns,524 t S.E.2d554,556(Ga.Ct.App.1999)( Avalidpurposeofroadblocksistolocateandarrestthosewhoareabusingthe 8 privilegeofdrivingonpublicroadsbydrivingwhiletheyareintoxicated....f  g Ԁf  g Itis_notunreasonable_Ԁthatsuchroadblocks L wouldbelocatedwheresuchdriverswouldbeexpectedtobeatatimetheymightbeexpectedtobethere.).By  introducingsomeproofthatunlicenseddriversareparticularlylikelytodriveatthistimeofnightorinthislocation,the  Stateminimizestheriskthatacourtwillfindanadministrativesubterfugeorthattheprimarypurposeoftheroadblock J  isnotsufficientlycompellingtojustifythesuspicionlessstops.f  g Ԁ(#$  0  - - k R0$      11  7uԀ  __Ouropiniontodayshouldinnowaybeconstruedasgivingconstitutionalapprovaltodriverslicense  roadblocksconductedinthemannercontemplatedbyGeneralOrder410.Wementionthenumerousandsubstantial t deviationsfromtheadministrativeregulationsonlytodemonstratethatlittleornosupervisoryauthorityexistedonthe 8 sceneofthisroadblock.TotheextentthatanyGeneralOrderregulatinganytypeofroadblockisinconsistentwithour L decisioninthiscaseorwithourdecisioninDowney,nomeasureofcompliancewiththatOrderwillsustainthe  checkpointasreasonableunderArticleI,section7.(|I20$ !.8-dXXd8         0  7uԀ d(|3j$ !.8-dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3j$ !.8-dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKKX[Z I&mage <=8C HKKKK  R0$      8  7uԀ  _f  g Indeed,thef  g f  g concurringdissentingf  g Ԁopinionseemstobegthequestionofreasonablenessinthisregard.By  overlookingtheineffectivenessoftheroadblockinthiscase,thef  g f  g concurringdissentingf  g Ԁopinionassumesthatthe t roadblockisareasonableintrusionbecausethereis nobetterwayofdetectingunlicenseddrivers.However,because 8 aseizurecannotbeconstitutionallyreasonableifitisineffectiveinachievingthestateinterestinvolved,cf.Prouse,440 L U.S.at660,theeffectivenessofaroadblockisanimportantmeasureofitsconstitutionalreasonableness.Therefore,  wedisagreethatthepresenceorlackofotheralternativesshouldbeofanygreatconcern.Althoughwewillnotchoose  amongvarious reasonablelawenforcementapproaches,Downey,945S.W.2dat110(emphasisadded),wewillnot H  abdicateourresponsibilitytodeterminewhatisreasonableinthefirstinstancemerelybecause nobetterwayhasbeen  \ found. !.8-dd8     _   -8iXXdd8@ $-INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#-$ #Ԉ &   May2,2001Session L XiX-#-XXi# STATEOFTENNESSEEv.LARRYALLENHICKS XiX- J #-XXi_#XiX- AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  J Ѐ#-XXi#XiX-CriminalCourtforHamiltonCounty  6 @@No.221717Hon.DouglasA.Meyer,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E199900957SCR11CD#-XXiI#XiX-ԀFiledSeptember11,_2001_   AV) ` dE<h` A i     Theprimaryissueinthiscaseiswhetherdriverslicenseroadblocksareconstitutionallyreasonable P underArticleI,section7oftheTennesseeConstitution.Afterofficersstoppedtheappellantata < driverslicensecheckpoint,theydiscoveredmarijuanainthefrontseatofhiscar.Theappellantlater (x successfullymovedtosuppresstheevidence,arguingthattheroadblockdidnotconformtothis d CourtsdecisioninStatev.Downey,945S.W.2d102(Tenn.1997).TheStateappealedtotheCourt P ofCriminalAppeals,whichreversedthetrialcourtandfoundthattheroadblockwasconstitutionally < reasonable.Wegrantedpermissiontoappealandholdthattheroadblockinthiscasewasestablished ( andoperatedcontrarytoArticleI,section7andourdecisioninDowney.Wereversethejudgment  oftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.   #-XXi#XiX-  Tenn.R.App.P.11ApplicationforPermissiontoAppeal;Judgmentofthe  CourtofCriminalAppealsReversed;IndictmentDismissed#-XXi #XiX-  t  #-Xi #XiX.-WilliamM.Barker,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,f  g f  g inwhichJaniceM.Holder,J.,joined.f  g  L  E.RileyAnderson,C.J.,f  g f  g filef  g df  g f  g aconcurringopinionf  g ,inwhich_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,J.,joined. 8!  FrankF._Drowota_,III,#-XXi #XiX-J.,filedaconcurringanddissentingopinion. $"t! JerryH.Summers,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,LarryAllenHicks.#-XXil #XiX- #L# #-XXiA#XiX-PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;#-XXi#XiX-ԀDarylJ. %$!% Brand,AssociateSolicitorGeneral,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.#-XXi/#XiX- &"& #-XXi#XiX-@66' OPINION #-XXiE#XiX-Ԉ )$) @*  f  g FACTUALBACKGROUND \+&+  f  g  H,', _#-XXi#XiX-  At1:15a.m.onOctober11,1997,theappellant,LarryAllenHicks,wasstoppedata   roadblockonSuckCreekRoadneartheHamiltonCountyandMarionCountyline.Thisroadblock,  whichwasestablishedostensiblyasadriverslicenseroadblockpursuanttoGeneralOrder410of  theDepartmentofSafety,wasconductedbysixpoliceofficers,includingtwoofficerseachfromthe t TennesseeHighwayPatrol,theChattanoogaPoliceDepartment,andtheRedBankPolice ` Department.OneoftheChattanoogaofficerswasaK9officer,andanotherofficercarriedapicture L  ofasuspectknownasthe NorthChattanoogarapist. 8    Afterstoppingtheappellantscar,OfficerPennyoftheRedBankPoliceDepartment  ` requestedtoseetheappellantslicense.Duringthistime,oneofficeronthescenedetectedthesmell  L  ofmarijuanacomingfromtheappellantscar,andtheK9officerwalkedhisdogaroundthecarto  8  snifffordrugs.Whenthedogalertedthatdrugswerepresent,theofficersplacedtheappellantunder $  arrestandcalledtheirsupervisor,LieutenantRonnieHillofthehighwaypatrol,tothesceneofthe   stop.Asubsequentsearchoftheappellantscaruncoveredfivepoundsofmarijuanainthe   passengerseat.Neitherofthehighwaypatrolofficerspersonallyparticipatedintheappellantsstop   orarrest.     Followinghisarrest,theappellantmovedtosuppresstheevidenceagainsthim,allegingthat \ thestopwasunreasonableunderArticleI,section7oftheTennesseeConstitutionandthatit H representedanarbitraryintrusionintohisreasonableexpectationofprivacy.Atthehearingonthe 4 motionheldonNovember10,1998,theappellantcalledoneoftheofficers,SergeantGregoryShort,  p totestifyastothedetailsoftheroadblock.OfficerShortstatedthattheofficersdidnotprovideany  \ advancepublicityconcerningtheroadblock,thattheydidnotpostanysignswarningapproaching H motoristsoftheroadblock,andthattheydidnotuseanyorangesafetyconestodirecttraffic.Healso 4 testifiedthatnoneoftheofficerswaswearingasafetyvestorcarryinganilluminatedbatonaswas   otherwiserequiredbyGeneralOrder410fornightroadblocks.AccordingtoOfficerShort,theonly   evidencethataroadblockwasinoperationwasthepresenceoftheofficersandthetwohighway  patrolcars.Finally,OfficerShorttestifiedthatofficersotherthanthosewiththehighwaypatrol  stoppedcarstorequestlicensesandthatsomeofficersquestioneddriversfurtheraboutmatters  unrelatedtothelicensecheck. l   TheappellantalsocalledLieutenantHilltotestifyastotheoperationoftheroadblock. D! LieutenantHillstatedthathewasorderedtosupervisetheroadblockduringhisshiftbyhistroop 0"  leader,LieutenantPhillips,andthatheexplainedtotheotherofficersalreadypresentthatthepurpose #l! oftheroadblockwastocheckfordriverslicenses.Despitehaving supervisoryauthorityoverthe $X" operationoftheroadblock,LieutenantHilltestifiedthatf  g hewasunawarethattheotherofficerson $D # thescenewerenotfollowingthespecificrequirementsofGeneralOrder410;thathedidnotknow %0!$ whytheRedBankorChattanoogaofficerswerepresentorwhocalledthem;andthathewas &"% unawareoftheactionsofcertainofficersquestioningdriversaboutthe NorthChattanoogarapist. '#& LieutenantHillalsoconfirmedthathedidnotparticipateintheappellantsstoporarrest. (#'   Afterhearingthetestimony,thetrialcourtgrantedtheappellantsmotiontosuppress.The |*%) StateappealedtotheCourtofCriminalAppeals,whichreversedthetrialcourtsdecision.The h+&* intermediatecourtheldthatf  g driverslicensef  g f  g f  g roadblocksaref  g Ԁgenerallypermissibleunderthe  TennesseeConstitution,andamajorityofthecourtfurtherheldthattheparticularroadblockatissue  inthiscasewasoperatedinareasonablemanner.Indissent,JudgeTiptonwrotethatbecausef  g f  g f  g an  officerf  g Ԁotherthanastatetrooperstoppedtheappellantscar,thedriverslicensecheckpointwas t statutorilyillegal.Hefurtherreasonedthatbecausethestatuterepresentedalegislativedeclaration ` thatsuchstopswereunreasonable,thetrialcourtssuppressionoftheevidenceshouldbeaffirmed. L    TheappellantthenrequestedpermissiontoappealtothisCourt,whichwegranted,onthe $ t followingthreeissues:(1)whetherdriverslicenseroadblocksareunconstitutionalperse;(2)  ` whethertheroadblockinthiscasewasunconstitutionalforitsfailuretofollowtheguidelines  L  establishedbyourdecisioninStatev.Downey,945S.W.2d102(Tenn.1997);f  g f  g andf  g (3)whetherthe  8  roadblockwasunlawfulbecauseofitsdelegationofstatutoryauthoritytolocalpoliceofficerstostop $  motoristsforalicensecheck.  +#  1      ׀WeholdthattheStatehasfailedtoestablishasufficientlycompelling   interestjustifyingtheneedtomaintaindriverslicenseroadblocksandthattheparticularroadblock   inthiscasefailedtocomplywiththestandardssetforthinDowney.ThejudgmentoftheCourtof   CriminalAppealsisreversed.     &  STANDARDOFAPPELLATEREVIEW  \     Whenreviewingatrialcourtsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawonamotionto'X+ 4 suppressevidence,weareguidedbythestandardofreviewsetforthinStatev.Odom,928S.W.2d  p 18(Tenn.1996).Underthisstandard, atrialcourtsfindingsoffactinasuppressionhearingwill  \ beupheldunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Id.at23.However,whenthetrialcourt H doesnotsetforthitsfindingsoffactupontherecordoftheproceedings,wewilldecideonourown 4 wherethepreponderanceoftheevidencelies.Fieldsv.State,40S.W.3d450,457n.5(Tenn.2001);   seealsoGanzevoortv.Russell,949S.W.2d293,296(Tenn.1997).Asinallcasesonappeal, the   prevailingpartyinthetrialcourtisaffordedthestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceandall  reasonableandlegitimateinferencesthatmaybedrawnfromthatevidence.SeeStatev.Carter,  16S.W.3d762,765(Tenn.2000)(quotingStatev.Keith,978S.W.2d861,864(Tenn.1998)).  Finally,wereviewthetrialcourtsconclusionsoflawunderadenovostandardwithoutaccording l anypresumptionofcorrectnesstothoseconclusions.See,e.g.,Statev.Walton,41S.W.3d75,81 X  (Tenn.2001);Statev.Crutcher,989S.W.2d295,299(Tenn.1999). D!  0"  &    ANALYSIS   2  TheFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionprovidesthat [t]herightofthe  peopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,papers,andeffects,againstunreasonablesearchesand t '2seizures,shallnotbeviolated....ArticleI,section7oftheTennesseeConstitutionsimilarly ` prohibitsunreasonablesearchesandseizures,andwehavelongheldthatthisprovisionisidentical L  inintentandpurposewiththeFourthAmendment.See,e.g.,Statev.Binette,33S.W.3d215,218 8  (Tenn.2000);Statev.Vineyard,958S.W.2d730,733(Tenn.1997).Whenexaminingthescopeand $ t applicationoftheprohibitionagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizures,wemustbecognizantthat  ` theessenceofthisprotection istosafeguardtheprivacyandsecurityofindividualsagainst  L  arbitraryinvasionsofgovernmentofficials.Downey,945S.W.2dat106(quotingCamarav.  8  MunicipalCourt,387U.S.523,528(1967)). $    Withoutquestion,thetemporarydetentionofindividualsduringthestopofavehicleby   police,evenifonlyforabriefperiodandforalimitedpurpose,constitutesaseizurewhich   implicatestheprotectionofboththestateandfederalconstitutionalprovisions.Vineyard,958   S.W.2dat734;Statev.Yeargan,958S.W.2d626,631(Tenn.1997).Whenanofficerstopsa p motoristwithprobablecauseorreasonablesuspiciontobelievethatunlawfulconducthasoccurred, \ thestopisgenerallyconsideredconstitutionallyreasonableunderboththeFourthAmendmentand H ArticleI,section7.Vineyard,958S.W.2dat734.Ontheotherhand,whenanofficerlackseven 4 reasonablesuspicionthatcriminalactivityhastakenplace,hisorherlawenforcementauthority is  p limitedtoinformalquestioningofthepersonsinvolved.Statev.Crutcher,989S.W.2d295,300  \ (Tenn.1999);seealsoStatev.Daniel,12S.W.3d420,425(Tenn.2000). H   f  g f  g f  g Inonelimitedcircumstance,howeverf  g ,thisCourthaspermittedofficerstostopanddetain   avehiclewithoutevenamodicumofsuspicionofunlawfulconductf  g .InStatev.Downey,945   S.W.2d102(Tenn.1997),thisCourtheldthatofficersmaystopmotoristsataroadblocktodetect  driversoperatingundertheinfluenceofalcohol,eventhoughtheconductofthemotoristswas  otherwise ordinary,innocent,andfreefromsuspicion.Weacknowledgedthatthisholdingwas   adeparturefromthefundamentalrequirementthatnoseizuremayoccurwithoutatleast a l foundedsuspicionbasedonarticulablefactsthatthepersonisorhasengagedincriminalactivity. X  Id.at104.Nevertheless,weconcludedthatasobrietyroadblockmaybeconstitutionallyreasonable D! solongas anindividualsreasonableexpectationofprivacyisnotsubjecttoarbitraryinvasions 0"  solelyattheunfettereddiscretionofofficersinthefield,andtheseizureiscarriedoutpursuantto #l! aplanembodyingexplicit,neutrallimitationsontheconductofindividualofficers.Id.at110. $X" Accordingly,theessentialquestionstoberesolvedinthiscasearewhethertheroadblockatissue $D # waspermissibleinlightofArticleI,section7oftheTennesseeConstitution,ourdecisionin %0!$ Downey,andvariousprotectionsaffordedbystatute. &"%     '#&  &  I.IMPROPERDELEGATIONOFSTATEHIGHWAYPATROL  AUTHORITYTOLOCALPOLICEOFFICERS   mC     Becausecourtsshouldnotgenerallydecideconstitutionalissuesifthecasemaybeproperly'C   resolvedonnonconstitutionalgrounds,seeStatev.Burdin,924S.W.2d82,87(Tenn.1996);Owens  v.State,908S.W.2d923,926(Tenn.1995),wefirstaddresswhethertheevidenceinthiscase  shouldhavebeensuppressedbecauselocalpoliceofficersunlawfullystoppedmotoriststocheck t driverslicensesandvehicleregistrations.TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection5550351(a)provides ` that L  8      8  [I]tisunlawfulforanylawenforcementofficerofthisstate,exceptastatepatrol $ t officerorofficerofthedepartment,todemandtheexhibitionofsuch[drivers]  ` licenses,unlesstheoperatorofthemotorvehicleisthenengagedin,orimmediately  L  priortosuchdemandhasbeenengagedin,aviolationofanymunicipalordinanceor  8  statutelawofthisstate.$    Inaddition,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection40-7-103(c)(1997)providesthatnoofficer except   membersoftheTennesseehighwaypatrolactingpursuantto[section]4-7-104,shallhavethe   authoritytostopamotorvehicleforthesolepurposeofexaminingorcheckingtheoperatorslicense   ofthedriverofsuchvehicle.Citingf  g f  g bothoff  g thesestatutes,theappellantarguesthattheroadblock p inthiscasewasstatutorilyillegalbecausef  g f  g f  g officersotherthanthosewiththeTennesseeHighway \ Patrolf  g Ԁactuallystoppedhiscarandrequestedtoseehisoperatorslicense. H   AmajorityoftheintermediatecourtfoundthatthesestatutesconflictedwithTennesseeCode  p Annotatedsection5550804(1998),whichrequiresadrivertodisplayhisorherlicense upon  \ demandofanyofficeroragentofthedepartmentoranypoliceofficerofthestate,countyor H municipality....Themajoritythenheldthatf  g f  g f  g thef  g Ԁconflictbetweenf  g f  g f  g section5550804f  g Ԁandthe 4 statutescitedbytheappellantf  g f  g f  g shouldf  g Ԁberesolvedinfavoroff  g f  g f  g theformerf  g Ԁbecauseitwasthelastin   timetobeenacted.Writingindissent,JudgeTiptonopinedthatf  g f  g f  g thestatutescitedbytheappellantf  g    havenotbeensupersededf  g f  g bysection5550804f  g becausef  g f  g f  g allthreef  g Ԁstatutesf  g f  g f  g canf  g Ԁbef  g f  g Ԁharmoniouslyf  g   construedf  g tof  g f  g f  g permitf  g Ԁlocalofficersf  g tof  g f  g f  g requestf  g Ԁanoperatorslicensef  g f  g ,solongasthosesameofficersdo  notinitiatethestopinordertodosof  g .    WedisagreewiththemajorityoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsinsofarasitfoundan X  irreconcilableconflictbetweenthesestatutes.Thelegislatureisalwayspresumedtoknowofits D! priorenactments,see,e.g.,Statev.Levandowski,955S.W.2d603,604(Tenn.1997),and 0"  consequently,courtsshouldfindrepealsbyimplicationonlywhenstatutescannotbeconstrued #l! harmoniously,see,e.g.,Croninv.Howe,906S.W.2d910,912(Tenn.1995).Inthiscase,the $X" variousstatutescanbereasonablyconstruedsoastogiveeffecttoeach,andwefindnoneedto $D # resorttothe lastintimecanonofconstructiontoresolveasupposedconflict.f  g f  g f  g  %0!$   Sectionf  g Ԁ5550804doesnotaddresstheabilityofofficerstoinitiateastopofamotorvehicle '#& toconductalicensecheckf  g f  g f  g ,butitspeaksonlytothegeneralauthorityofofficerstorequestadriver (#' todisplayhisorherlicense.Ontheotherhandf  g ,sections5550351(a)and407103(c)arequite )$( emphaticthatonlystatehighwaypatrolofficerspossesstheauthoritytoinitiatef  g f  g f  g thestopofavehicle |*%) forthispurpose,andthesetwostatutesdonotspeaktowhetherotherofficersmayrequestalicense h+&* afterastophasbeeninitiatedf  g .Consequently,weagreewithJudgeTiptonthatthelegislature  probablyintendedforsection5550804toapplyonlytomotoriststhathavealreadybeenstopped  foraviolationofthelaw.Assumingthistobethecase,then,theroadblockatissueherewasinclear  violationofsections5550351(a)and407103(c)becausetherecordunequivocallyshowsthatthe t f  g f  g f  g appellantsstopwasinitiatedf  g Ԁbylocalpoliceofficers. `   However,ourfindingthattheroadblockinthiscasewasoperatedcontrarytostatutory 8  requirementsdoesnotnecessarilyresolvetheissueofwhethertheevidenceseizedasaresultofthis $ t roadblockshouldbesuppressed.Importantly,suppressionofevidenceisnotrequiredifthestatutory  ` violationdoesnotactuallyinfringeuponaspecificconstitutionalprotectionorguarantee.See  L  Walton,41S.W.3dat93.JudgeTiptonbelievedthat becausethestatutesrepresentedalegislative  8  declarationthatseizurescontrarytothestatutewereunreasonable,theviolationofsections5550 $  351(a)and407103(c)warrantedsuppressionoftheevidenceobtainedfromtheroadblock.While   thisviewmayhavepossessedsomemeritatthetimethatJudgeTiptonpennedhisdissent,weare   reluctanttoadoptasimilarholdingtoday.Sincethetimethatthiscasewaspendingbeforethe   intermediatecourt,thelegislaturehasamendedsection5550351(a)topermit anypoliceofficer   ofthestate,county,ormunicipalitytorequestdisplayoff  g f  g f  g driversf  g Ԁlicenses.See2001Tenn.Pub. p Actsch.700,12(effectiveJuly1,2001).Accordingly,anylegislativedeclarationinthisregard \ mustbeweighedinfavorofapprovingthestop. H   Moreover,wehavefoundnoauthorityforholdingthattheemploymentstatusoftheofficer  p requestingtoseethelicensemayalonebedeterminativeoftheconstitutionalreasonablenessofthe  \ seizure.Instead,thestatutoryviolationappearsrelevantonlytotheextentthatitf  g f  g f  g ,alongf  g Ԁwithother H factors,f  g f  g Ԁcontributesf  g Ԁtofindinganunreasonableintrusiononthelibertyandprivacyofmotorists. 4 Therefore,becauseresolutionofthisstatutoryissuedoesnotleadtoafullandproperresolutionof   thecase,wemustaddresstheconstitutionalityoftheroadblockitself.     &  II.CONSTITUTIONALITYOFTHISROADBLOCKUNDERARTICLEI,  SECTION7OFTHETENNESSEECONSTITUTION   g  OurdecisioninStatev.Downeydidnotaddresstheconstitutionalproprietyofroadblocks'%g X  forpurposesotherthantodetectmotoristsdrivingundertheinfluenceofalcohol.Recognizingthis D! fact,theappellanthasurgedthisCourttofindthatroadblocksestablishedforthesolepurposeof 0"  checkingdriverslicensesandvehicleregistrationareunconstitutionalperseunderthefederaland #l! stateconstitutions.AlthoughtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasneverexpresslyheldthatdrivers $X" licenseroadblocksareconstitutionallypermissibleundertheFourthAmendment,ithassuggested $D # thatsuchmaybethecaseuponapropershowing.Forexample,inDelawarev.Prouse,440U.S. %0!$ 648,663(1979),theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatmotoristscouldnotberandomlystopped &"% byofficerscheckingfordriverslicensesorvehicleregistration,butitnotedthatthequestioningof '#& allmotoristsataroadblockcouldbeone possiblealternative.TheCourthasalsoacknowledged (#' thisview,albeitindicta,inatleasttwocasessinceProuse.SeeCityofIndianapolisv.Edmond,531 )$( U.S.32,f  g f  g f  g 3940f  g Ԁ(2000);Texasv.Brown,460U.S.730,739(1983)(pluralityopinion). |*%)  h+&*   Nevertheless,theissueofwhetheradriverslicenseroadblockisconstitutionallypermissible  undertheTennesseeConstitutionhasnotbeendecidedbythisCourt.WeacknowledgedinDowney  thatalthoughfederalcasesinterpretingtheFourthAmendmentare particularlypersuasiveauthority  forconstruingf  g ArticleI,section7,theTennesseeConstitutioncanprovidegreaterprotectionforits t citizensagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizures.f  g f  g ԀSeef  g Ԁ945S.W.2dat106.Accordingly,in ` analyzingtheconstitutionalityofroadblocksunderArticleI,section7,weadoptedthetestsimilar L  tothatestablishedinBrownv.Texas,443U.S.47(1979),whichgenerallyanalyzesthe 8  reasonablenessofseizuresthatarelessintrusivethanfullarrest.Seeid.at110.Asappliedby $ t Downeytoroadblocks,thistestexaminesthreefactors:(1)thegravityofthepublicconcernsserved  ` bytheroadblock;(2)thedegreetowhichtheroadblockadvancesthepublicinterest;and(3)the  L  severityoftheroadblocksinterferencewithanindividualslibertyorprivacy.Seeid.at10708;  8  cf.Brown,443U.S.at5051;f  g Michiganv.Sitz,496U.S.444,450(1990).f  g Ԁf  g  $    WereaffirmthatthetestadoptedinDowneyistobeappliedinallcasesinvolving   constitutionalchallengestoroadblocksorcheckpointsundertheTennesseeConstitution.Although   theCourtofCriminalAppealsanalyzedtheissuesinthiscaseasconstituting perseand as   appliedchallenges,Downeymadenosuchconstitutionaldistinctions.Itmaybetruethatwhenthe t Statecannotidentifyasufficientlygravepublicconcernjustifyingaroadblock,theroadblockcould ` becharacterizedasbeingunconstitutional perse.Itmayalsobetruethatwhenaroadblock L exhibitsanunreasonablelevelofintrusiononlibertyorprivacy,itmaybecharacterizedasbeing 8 unconstitutional asapplied.However,thesecharacterizationsencourageanalysisoutsideoff  g f  g the $t f  g testadoptedinDowney,andthisanalysiscreatesaheighteneddangerthatconstitutionalstandards ` willnotbeuniformlyandconsistentlyapplied.Accordingly,wedeclinetoaddressthearguments L intermsofunconstitutionality perseand asappliedandinsteadcontinuetodeterminethe 8 reasonablenessofthisroadblockf  g f  g Ԁbyusingthethreeprongedtestf  g ԀassetforthinDowney. $    &  A.THEGRAVITYOFTHEPUBLICCONCERN  SERVEDBYTHEROADBLOCK   zXiXXXi  Withrespecttothegravityofthepublicconcernsservedbydriverslicenseroadblocks,we'z h mustfirstidentifythestateinterestinmaintainingsuchroadblocksandthendeterminewhetherthis T  interestissufficientlycompellingtoabrogateconstitutionalprotectionsagainstsuspicionlessstops. @! f  g f  g f  g Thepresenceofasufficientlycompellingstateinterestjustifyingawarrantlessseizureata ,"|  checkpointisanimportant,ifnotessential,factorgoingtotheoverallconstitutionalreasonableness #h! ofanysuchstop.TheneedandimportanceofthisfactorwereacknowledgedinDowney,which $T" devotedconsiderableattentiontoexaminingwhethertheStatepossessedasufficiently compelling $@ # interestinmaintainingsobrietycheckpoints. %,!$   Moreover,persuasiveauthorityforinitiallyrequiringthepresenceofasufficiently '#& compellingstateinterestcanbefoundinothercasesdecidedsinceDowneysrelease,perhapsmost (#' notablytherecentdecisionfromtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinCityofIndianapolisv.Edmond. )$( Inthatcase,theCourtheldaroadblockunconstitutionalsolelybecauseitsprimarypurpose x*%)  contravene[d]theFourthAmendment.See531U.S.at42.Therefore,webelievethatcritical d+&* examinationofthenatureandpresenceofthestateinterestinvolvedisanimportantandessential  factorinascertainingthereasonablenessofanyroadblock.Assuch,wefirstundertakeacareful  studyoftheStatesassertedinterestinthiscaseandoftheproofintherecordtosupportthepresence  ofthisinterest. t f  g   &  THENATUREOFTHESTATESINTEREST L  f  g   Thenatureoff  g ԀtheStatesinterestinthiscaseiseasilyidentifiedbecausetheStatehas'L  $ t consistentlyarguedthatthisroadblockwasestablishedonlyasacheckpointtof  g f  g f  g ensurehighwaysafety  ` bydetectingf  g Ԁandf  g f  g f  g deterringf  g Ԁunlicenseddrivers.Whilesomeevidenceadmittedlyexiststothecontraryf  g f  g   L  astothetruepurposeofthisparticularroadblock,wewillpresumeforsakeofthepresentanalysis  8  thattheStatesinterestisasasserted.f  g f  g ԀTherefore,theessentialinquiryhereiswhethertheStates $  assertedinterestissufficientlycompellingsoastojustifysuspicionlessstopsataroadblock.f  g      Withrespecttothef  g f  g f  g sufficientlycompellingnatureofthisinterestf  g ,weacknowledgethatwe   gavenospecificindicationinDowneyofwhenaStateinterestbecomessufficientlycompellingso   astojustifysuspicionlessseizuresataf  g f  g f  g checkpointf  g .However,itisclearfromtheanalysisofthat p opinionthattheStatesinterestindetectinganddeterringdriversundertheinfluenceofalcoholwas \ sufficientlycompellingf  g f  g f  g forthreereasons:f  g Ԁ(1)thef  g f  g Statesf  g interestf  g f  g Ԁinmaintainingtheroadblockf  g Ԁwas H directlytiedtotheabilityofdriverstosafelyoperatemotorvehiclesontheroadsandhighwaysof 4 thestate;(2)theharmsoughttobeeliminatedf  g f  g Ԁbytheroadblockf  g Ԁwasonethatposedanimminent  p dangerofdeathorseriousbodilyinjury;and(3)themagnitudeoftheproblem,coupledwithits  \ harm,wassuchthatitcommandedheightenedaction.  +#  2      ׀Whenthepurposeforaroadblockisarguably H relatedtomaintaininghighwaysafety,webelievethatthesestandardsassetforthinDowneyare 4 sound,andwethereforerequireasimilarshowinginthiscase.Althoughthesestandardsdonot   necessarilycomprisethesinequanonofasufficientlycompellingstateinterestwhentheroadblock   isarguablyrelatedtohighwaysafety,anyadditionalconsiderationsjustifyingsuspicionlessstopsof  anautomobileshouldberelatedinkind."( +#  3          f  g f  g f  g Thef  g f  g concurringdissentingf  g Ԁopinionf  g ԀauthoredbyJusticeDrowotaf  g Ԁassertsthatbyrequiring l specificproofofthepresenceoftheStatescompellinginterest,wearesomehowbeingunfaithful X  tothetestadoptedinDowney.Indeed,thef  g f  g concurringdissentingf  g Ԁopiniontakesthepositionthat D! whiletheimportanceoftheStatesinterestwillaffectthe weighingprocess,nocasehasrequired 0"  theStatetofirstpossessacompellinginterestbeforeexaminingtheotheraspectsoftheroadblock.  Inessence,thef  g f  g concurringdissentingf  g Ԁopinionassertsthattheabsenceofasufficientlycompelling  interestmaybeoffsetbyminimalpoliceintrusionintothepersonallibertyandprivacyofthe  motorists.Wedonotagree. t   InassertingthatnocasehaseverrequiredtheStatetoinitiallysetforthasufficiently L  compellinginterest,thef  g f  g concurringdissentingf  g Ԁopinionoverlooksthefactthatidentifyingaseparate 8  anddistinctstateinterestwithregardtoArticleI,section7waskeytoDowneyitself.See945 $ t S.W.2dat10910.ItistruethatDowneydidnotdwellupontheimportanceoftheStatesinterest  ` incurbingincidentsofDUI,butunliketheassertedinterestinthiscase,thecompellingnatureofthe  L  interestinDowneywasalreadyabundantlyclearfromtheproofasidentifiedbytheCourt.Assuch,  8  theCourtinsteadfocuseditsopiniononwhethertheroadblocksintrusionintopersonallibertyand $  privacywastoosevere.TheCourtsprimaryfocusontheseverityoftheintrusion,however,should   notbeconstruedasminimizingtheneedtoidentifyandproveasufficientlycompellinginterestin   thefirstinstance.Importantly,theDowneyCourtsdiscussionofthestandardstominimizeintrusion   andlimitdiscretionoccurredonlyaftertheCourtfirst recognize[d]theStatescompellinginterest   indetectinganddeterringmotoristswhodrivewhileundertheinfluenceofalcohol.945S.W.2d p at110. \   Moreover,thef  g f  g concurringdissentingf  g ԀopinionmakesnomentioninthisregardoftheUnited 4 StatesSupremeCourtsrecentdecisiontothecontraryinEdmond.Inthatcase,theCourthelda  p roadblockinvalidsolelybecausetheassertedinterest"generalcrimedetection"wasan  \  impermissiblepurposeunderFourthAmendmentanalysis.See512U.S.at47.Notably,theCourt H didnotfurtherexaminetheissueofwhethertheroadblockwasestablishedwithminimalintrusions 4 intothelibertyandprivacyofthemotorists,butitinsteadaffirmedthat aprogramdrivenbyan   impermissiblepurposemaybeproscribedwhileaprogramimpelledbylicitpurposesispermitted,   eventhoughthechallengedconductmaybeoutwardlysimilar.Id.Tobeclear,then,asfarasthe  FourthAmendmentisconcerned,theinquiryofwhetherasufficientlycompellinginterestexistsin  thefirstinstanceisaseparate,andindependent,inquiryfromwhetherthelevelofpoliceintrusion  intolibertyandprivacyisminimal. l   BothDowneyandEdmondarequitepersuasiveauthoritiesfortheviewthataroadblockwill D! necessarilyfailconstitutionalexaminationifitlacksasufficientlycompellingstateinterest.Assuch, 0"  contrarytotheconclusionreachedbythef  g f  g concurringdissentingf  g Ԁopinion,weconcludethatthe #l! presenceofasufficientlycompellinginterestisnecessaryunderArticleI,section7beforean $X" examinationoftheotheraspectsofaroadblockmayproceed. $D #   f  g &  PROOFSUPPORTINGTHESTATESINTERESTINTHISCASE &"% f  g   Turningtotheproofinthiscase,wefindthatdespitetheStatesargumentf  g Ԁthatdrivers'& (#' licenseroadblocksarenecessarytoensurethesafetyofmotoristsontheroads,f  g noevidenceinthe )$( recordf  g Ԁestablishesthisfactor,eveniftrue,establishesthatthisinterestissufficientlycompellingto |*%) justifysuspicionlessstops.Preciselybecausearoadblock isadeparturefrom[the]fundamental h+&* principlescontainedinArticleI,section7thataseizuremustbeaccompaniedbyatleastsome  measureofindividualizedsuspicion,Downey,945S.W.2dat104,wewillnotpresumethepresence  ofacompellingstateinteresttojustifyfurtherexpandingthescopeofpermissivesuspicionless  seizures.Aswehavenotedbeforeinothercases,awarrantlessseizure ispresumedunreasonable, t andevidencediscoveredasaresultthereofissubjecttosuppression,unlesstheStatedemonstrates ` thatthesearchorseizurewasconductedpursuanttooneofthenarrowlydefinedexceptionstothe L  warrantrequirement.Statev.Bridges,963S.W.2d487,490(Tenn.1997);Statev.Crutcher,989 8  S.W.2d295,299300(Tenn.1999). $ t   Becausetheexceptionstothewarrantrequirement arejealouslyandcarefullydrawn,the  L  Statemustshowthat theexigenciesofthesituationmadethesearch[orseizure]imperative.State  8  v.Bartram,925S.W.2d227,230(Tenn.1996)(emphasisaddedandinternalquotationsomitted). $  Therefore,asrequiredinDowney,theStatemustshowthatdriversnotpossessingalicenseare   unabletosafelyoperatemotorvehiclesontheroadsandhighwaysofthisstate;thatanunlicensed   driverinvariablypresentsanimminentdangerofdeathorseriousbodilyinjurytootherdriversthat   isnottypicallypresentwithlicenseddrivers;andthatthesafetythreatfromunlicenseddriversisof   suchamagnitudethattheproblem,coupledwithitsriskofharm,commandsheightenedattention. p OnlywhenthisshowingismademaycourtsfindthattheStatehasasufficientlycompellinginterest \ tojustifymaintainingdriverslicenseroadblocks. H   Wef  g f  g arenotunawareofthefactthatsomedecisionsfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  p appeartohaveapprovedofdriverslicenseroadblocksafterfindingthattheStatepossesses  \  significantand legitimateinterestsinregulatingvehiclesanddriversonstatehighways.# +#  4      ׀We H agreethattheStatepossessesvalidandimportantinterestsinthisrespect,butbecausetheStatehas 4 theburdenofestablishingthereasonablenessoftheseizure,onemaynotmerelypresumethatthese   interestsaref  g Ԁsufficientlycompellingf  g f  g tojustifyabrogatingconstitutionalguarantees.Onlywhenthe   Statemakestherequiredshowing,asithaspreviouslydonewithsobrietycheckpoints,maycourts  acceptthepresenceofthecompellinginterestandproceedtofurtheranalyzetheroadblockunder  thisdecisionandDowney.    Usingarationalesimilartothatsometimesadoptedbytheintermediatecourt,theconcurring X  dissentingopinioninthiscaseopinesthattheStatepossessesa vitalf  g Ԁinterestinmaintaining D! f  g f  g driverslicenseroadblockssufficienttopermitsuspicionlessstops.Morespecifically,the 0"  concurringdissentingopinionpresumesthatsuchroadblocksareurgentlyneededbecause(1) #l! personstooyoungtodriveposeathreattopublicsafety,and(2)personswhohavehadtheirlicenses $X" suspendedforDUIconvictionsortrafficoffensesoftendisregardthatsuspension,thereby $D # endangeringpublicsafetyontheroads.Wedonotdisagreethatsuchconcernsmaybepresent,and %0!$ iftheseconcernsdemonstratearealf  g Ԁneedtocurbasubstantialandimminentthreattothesafetyof &"% motoristsonpublicroadsf  g ,whichf  g Ԁdistinctlyf  g f  g resultsf  g Ԁfromtheconductoff  g thesef  g unlicenseddriversf  g f  g ,then '#& thefirstprongoftheDowneytestwillhavebeensatisfied.Indeed,itisforthesereasons,and  perhapssomeothers,thatwehaveclarifiedtheStatesburdenofprovingthepresenceofthese  concernsinfuturecases.    Tobesure,however,therecordinthiscasecontainsabsolutelynoproofoftheurgent ` necessitiesidentifiedbytheconcurringdissentingopinion,andmeresuspicionsandconjecturesof L  thepossibilitiesofsuchdangersareneveradequatetojustifyabrogationofconstitutionalliberties. 8  Historyhasdemonstratedthattheinfinitefacultiesofmankindaresuchthatonemaydeviseany $ t supposeddangerorperiltojustifyfurthererosionofconstitutionallyprotectedliberties.Ifthese  ` factuallyunsupportedsuppositionscouldjustifyfurtherabrogationofthewarrantrequirementof  L  ArticleI,section7,theneveryprotectionnowguaranteedbythisimportantprovisionwouldbe  8  subjecttotheirrationalassaultofpretendedevilscertaintofollow.Merelydeclaringthattheinterest $  existsintheoryisnotthesameasdemonstratingthattheneedexistsinfact.     Furthermore,byalleviatingtheStatesburdenofproductionregardingitscompellinginterest,   theconcurringdissentingopinionessentiallyplacestheburdenonthedefendanttoretainhisorher   constitutionalprotectionsunderArticleI,section7bydisputingtheStatespresumedinterest.This p CourthasalwaysrequiredtheStatetobringforthevidencetodemonstratetheproprietyofa \ warrantlesssearch.Bypresumingthepresenceofasufficientlycompellinginterestwithoutproof H intherecordofanyrealdangersinvolved,theconcurringdissentingopiniontakesaperilousstep 4 inapaththatshiftstheburdenofprooftothedefendanttoshowthelackofasufficientlycompelling  p interestjustifyingawarrantlessseizure.Ifothercourtshavetakensimilarpathsastheconcurring  \ dissentingopinionhasattested,ArticleI,section7demandsthatwetaketheroadlesstraveled. H   Finally,theconcurringdissentingopinionexpressestheconcernthattherequirementsfor   establishingthepresenceofasufficientlycompellingstateinterestaretooburdensome.These   requirementsarepreciselythosedemandedbyDowneyitself,andtheextentoftheburdenisneither  morenorlessthanwasrequiredbythatcase.Indeed,whiletheburdentobecarriedbytheStatemay  beheavy,onemaylegitimatelyquestionwhatpurposeisservedbyabrogatingDowneywhenthe  labeloftheroadblockischanged.JustastheCourtlookedtoproofofasufficientlycompelling l interestinDowneytojustifysobrietycheckpoints,wemustalsodemandsimilarprooftojustify X  driverslicensecheckpoints. D! f  g   However,whilewewillnotpresumethatproofexistssupportingthepresenceofa #l! sufficientlycompellingstateinterest,wearealsounwillingtoadopttheviewsofChiefJustice $X" Andersonandholdthatsuchevidencecannotexisteither.Theconcurringopinionauthoredbythe $D # ChiefJusticecorrectlyassertsthat thepossessionofadriverslicensedoesnotnecessarilyassure %0!$ thesafetyandfitnessofanymotorist.However,theconcurringopinionthenassertsthatnosuch &"% proofcouldeverexist,because thereisnobasisuponwhichtoreasonablyconcludethatamotorist '#& whoisnotinpossession[of]avaliddriverslicensenecessarilyposesanimmediatedangerofdeath (#' orseriousbodilyinjurygreatenoughtowarrantthesuspicionlessstopsofalldriversata )$( checkpoint.(emphasisinoriginal). |*%)  h+&*   Wearereluctanttoholdtoday,aswouldtheconcurringopinion,thatthelackofproofinthis  recordconclusivelydemonstratesthattheStatehasnosufficientlycompellinginterestinestablishing  adriverslicenseroadblock.Rather,thelackofevidenceinthisrecordstemsmorefromthefactthat  theStatehasnothadameaningfulopportunitytodeveloptherecordinthisregard.Hicksdidnot t specificallyassertthelackofasufficientlycompellingstateinterestinsupportofhisoriginalmotion#XiXXXiu{# ` tosuppress,andthetrialjudgeapparentlydidnotconsiderthisissueingrantingthedefendants L  motion.Indeed,thisissuewasnotsquarelypresentedinanycourtuntilHicksraiseditforthefirst 8  timeasappelleeintheCourtofCriminalAppeals. $ t   Giventheproceduralhistoryofthiscase,wedisagreethattheStatehadameaningful  L  opportunitytointroduceproofofitsinterestinmaintainingdriverslicenseroadblocks.Importantly,  8  boththisCourtandtheCourtofCriminalAppealspossessappellatejurisdictiononly,andourability $  toreceiveandhearevidencenotpresentedinthetrialcourtisseverelyrestricted.SeeDuncanv.   Duncan,672S.W.2d765,768(Tenn.1984);seealsoTenn.R.App.P.14.Assuch,wedisagreethat   apartyisnecessarilyaffordedameaningfulopportunitytopresentevidenceandbeheardmerely   becauseanissuehasbeenraisedanddeterminedintheappellatecourts.XiXXXiԀBecauseourconcernshould   alwaysbetoensurethatlitigantsarefullyandfairlyheardbeforetheirinterestsareadjudicated, p prudencedictatesthattheStatebegivenameaningfulopportunitytopresentevidenceofitsclaims \ beforeitsinterestsareconclusivelydetermined. H #XiXXXi]#  HadthemotiontosuppresssquarelyputtheStateonnoticeofitsneedtopresentevidence  p toshowasufficientlycompellinginteresttojustifystoppingmotoristslawfullytravelingalongthe  \ highwaysofthisstate,andhadtheStateunderthosecircumstancesfailedtopresentsuchevidence, H thenwewouldnothesitatetoagreewiththeconclusionreachedbytheChiefJustice.However, 4 becauseourreviewoftherecordindicatesthattheissuewasnotpleadedortriedduringthehearing   onthemotiontosuppress,theprudentandreasonablepathisforthisCourttoruleupontherecord   asdevelopedinthiscaseandnottoforeclosethepossibilitythattheStatecanestablishasufficiently  compellinginterestinfuturecases.    Indemonstratingthissufficientlycompellingstateinterestinthesefuturecases,however,we l emphasizethattheStatemaynotmerelyrelyuponitsgeneralinterestinmaintaininghighwaysafety X  tojustifysuspicionlessseizuresofitscitizens,nomatterhow minimalonemaybeableto D! characterizetheintrusion.TotheextentthattheStatesjustificationformaintainingaroadblock 0"  doesnotreflectareal,compellinginterestincurbingasubstantialandimminentthreattothesafety #l! ofmotoristsonpublicroads,onemaybeunabletodistinguishthissupposedinterestinsafetyfrom $X" amoregeneralinterestinordinarycrimecontrol.However,astheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthas $D # madeclear,andasweagreehaslongbeenthelawinTennessee,innocasemaytheStateestablish %0!$ aroadblockmerely todetectevidenceofordinarycriminalwrongdoing.Edmond,531U.S.atf  g f  g 41f  g . &"% Instead, [w]henlawenforcementauthoritiespursueprimarilygeneralcrimecontrolpurposesat '#& checkpoints...,stopscanonlybejustifiedbysomequantumofindividualizedsuspicion.Id. (#' f  g f  g at47f  g .Therefore,unlikemanyofoursisterstates,thisCourtwillnotpresumetheexistenceofa )$(  compellinginterestuntiltheStateintroducessomeproofoftheneedtocurbasubstantialand |*%) imminentthreattothesafetyofmotoristsonpublicroadsdistinctlyresultingfromtheconductof  unlicenseddrivers.% +#  5      ׀   f  f  g   Moreover,wealsoemphasizethattheStatemaynotmerelyrelyuponitsgeneralinterestin t maintainingtheintegrityofitsdriverslicensingschemetojustifyfutureroadblocks.Weseeno ` indicationfromtherecordthattheStatesinterestinenforcingadriverslicenselawisanygreater L  thanitsinterestinenforcinganyotherlaw,andindeed,theStatesinterestinenforcingother 8  criminallawsisatleastasgreatasitisinenforcinglawsregulatingdriverslicenses.IftheState $ t maynotlegitimatelyestablishroadblockstodetectotherviolations,itfollowsthattheStatemaynot  ` dosomerelytoenforcedriverslicenselaws.Therefore,tojustifysuspicionlessstopsinthis  L  context,theStatemustnecessarilyrelyupontheneedtocurbasubstantialandimminentthreatto  8  thesafetyofmotoristsonpublicroadsdistinctlyresultingfromtheconductofunlicenseddrivers. $  f  g   Accordingly,becausetherecordhasnotbeensufficientlydevelopedinthiscaseforthis   CourttomakeadefinitivedeterminationastothecompellingnatureoftheStateinterestinvolved,   wecannotfindthattheStatehasdemonstratedasufficientlygravepublicconcernsoastowarrant   furtherexpansionoftheroadblockexceptionundertheArticleI,section7.Whilewedonot p foreclosethepossibilitythattheStatecouldassertacompellinginterestinfuturecasesconcerning \ theneedtoestablishdriverslicenseroadblocks,theabsenceofanysuchevidenceinthiscasemust H weighveryheavilyagainst,ifnotbefatalto,findingtheroadblockatissuehereconstitutionally 4 reasonable.  p    &  B.THEDEGREETOWHICHTHEPUBLICCONCERNIS H FURTHEREDBYTHESEIZURE  0 ^  f  g f  g f  g Inadditiontorequiringasufficientlycompellingstateinterest,ourf  g ԀdecisioninDowneyalso  required'&qԀanexaminationofthedegreetowhichthepresenceoftheroadblockadvancesf  g f  g f  g thatf  g   compellingf  g f  g Ԁstatef  g Ԁinterest.InProuse,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtstatedthatanyf  g Ԁtypeof  suspicionlessseizuremustpromotetheassertedstateinterestina sufficientlyproductivefashion  beforeitcould qualifyasareasonablelawenforcementpractice.440U.S.at660.Werecognized  thisprincipleinDowney,althoughwenotedthatcourtsshouldgenerallyrefrainfromanalyzing  whetherotherconstitutionallyreasonablemeasuresaremoreeffectiveinaccomplishingthestates t interest.945S.W.2dat10809.Accordingly,thissecondprongoftheDowneytestmaybesatisfied ` whenonecanfairlysaythatroadblockscontributeinameaningfulwaytoachievingthesufficiently L  compellingstateinterest. 8    TheStatedidnotintroduceanyevidenceatthesuppressionhearingtoestablishthepresence  ` ofthisfactor.Fromourownreviewoftherecord,wenotethattheroadblockatissuehere,which  L  wasconductedoveratwonightperiod,didnotuncoverasingledriverwhowasoperatingavehicle  8  withoutavalidlicense.Althoughthefailuretodetectanyunlicenseddriverscouldbetheoretically $  attributabletothedeterrenceprovidedbytheroadblock,weseriouslydoubtthatsuchwasthecase   herebecausenoadvancedpublicityoftheroadblockwasgiventothepublicatlarge.Aswe   recognizedinDowney,theneedtodetercertaintypesofconductcanjustifyaroadblockevenwhen   theevidenceotherwisesuggeststhattheparticularroadblockisineffectiveindetectingtheobject   ofitsoperation.However,beforemotoristscanbereasonablydeterredbyroadblocks,theymustfirst p beawarethattheyarelikelytoencountersuchroadblocks,andadvancedpublicityisonekeyto \ ensuringthisawareness.Cf.Statev.Hooper,29S.W.3d1,11(Tenn.2000)(discussingpublicity H andpublicknowledgeasakeyfactorindeterrencephilosophy).' +#  6      ׀Therefore,solongastheState 4 choosestorelyondeterrenceasarationalesupportinganyroadblock,wereiteratethatadvance  p publicityoftheroadblockmaybeessential,andinthosecaseswherethisfactorisabsent,theStates  \ abilitytorelyupondeterrencetojustifythestopsiscorrespondinglydiminished. H   Wealsofindnoevidenceintherecordfromwhichonecouldinferthatthecomplete   ineffectivenessofthisroadblockindetectingunlicenseddriverswassomewhatofananomaly.For   example,noproofexiststhatthetimeandsiteofthisroadblockwerechosenbecauseoftheir  effectivenessindetectinganddeterringunlicenseddrivers.TheStateintroducednoproofthat  unlicenseddriversareparticularlylikelytobedrivingduringthetimesthattheseroadblockswere  inoperation,i.e.,between12:00a.m.and4:00a.m.,andwedoubtthatthisfactisevensupported l byanecdotalevidenceinamannersimilartothatsupportingdrunkdrivers.NordidtheState X  introduceevidencethatthesiteoftheroadblockwaschosenbecauseoftheparticularlyhighvolume D! oftrafficornumerousincidentsofunlicenseddrivers.Cf.Ingersollv.Palmer,743P.2d1299,1315 0"  (Cal.1987).Tobeclear,thesefactorsarenotrequiredtodemonstratethatthecheckpoint  contributesinameaningfulwaytoachievingthecompellingstateinterest.Nevertheless,tothe  extentthatthesefactorsareconsideredbylawenforcementofficersorareotherwiseapparentonthe  faceoftherecord,thequestionableeffectivenessofanindividualroadblockmaybemitigated.( +#  7       t   WecannotfindaroadblocktobeconstitutionallyreasonableunlesstheStatefirst L  demonstratessomemeaningfullinkbetweenitsestablishmentandtheachievementofitscompelling 8  interest.Becausetherecordinthiscasecontainsnosuchevidence,wecannotfairlyconcludethat $ t theroadblockinthiscasemeaningfullycontributedtoachievingthestatesinterestindetectingand  ` deterringunlicenseddrivers.f  g f  g f  g ԀTakingissuewiththisconclusion,thef  g f  g concurringdissentingf  g Ԁopinion  L  assertsthatthesecondprongoftheDowneytestismetinthiscasebecause thereisnobetterway  8  ofdetectingunlicenseddriversthanthroughroadblocks.Assumingthisfacttobetrue,wenotethat $  thelackofothereffectivealternativesdoesnotalonebestowtheblessingofconstitutional   reasonablenessuponanotherwisetotallyineffectiveroadblock.Whateverelsemaybesaidofthe   presenceofviablealternatives,itisclearthattheroadblockmustpromotetheassertedstateinterest   ina sufficientlyproductivefashionbeforeitcan qualifyasareasonablelawenforcement   practice.Cf.Prouse,440U.S.at660. +#  8      ׀Therefore,theabsenceofthisprooff  g Ԁmustalsoweighheavily p againstfindingthattheroadblockherewasconstitutionallyreasonable. \    &  C.INTRUSIVENESSOFTHEROADBLOCKATISSUEINTHISCASE  4 w  Regardingtheseverityoftheinterferencewithpersonallibertyandprivacy,wehaveheld'%Ԁthat X aroadblockf  g f  g f  g cannotbedeemedf  g Ԁconstitutionallyreasonableunless itisestablishedandoperatedin D accordancewithpredeterminedoperationalguidelinesandsupervisoryauthoritythatminimizethe 0 riskofarbitraryintrusiononindividualsandlimitthediscretionoflawenforcementofficersatthe  scene.Downey,945S.W.2dat104.Tothisend,ourdecisioninDowneyenumeratedseveral  characteristicsofaroadblockthatminimizetheriskofarbitraryintrusionunderArticleI,section7,  including(1)stoppingallcarstravelinginbothdirections,unlesscongestedtrafficrequires  permittingmotoriststopassthrough;(2)takingadequatesafetyprecautions,suchaswarning  approachingmotoristsoftheroadblockandstoppingcarsonlyinasafeandvisiblearea;(3)  conductingtheroadblockwithuniformedofficersandmarkedpatrolcarswithflashingemergency t lights;and(4)providingadvancedpublicityoftheroadblocktothepublicatlarge,separatefrom, ` andinadditionto,anynoticewarningsgiventoapproachingmotorists.Althoughtheabsenceofany L  oneofthesefactorsdoesnotnecessarilyinvalidatearoadblock,theyeachweighheavilyin 8  determiningtheoverallreasonablenessofthecheckpoint.Id.at11012passim. $ t   However,themostimportantattributeofareasonableroadblockisthepresenceofgenuine  L  limitationsuponthediscretionoftheofficersinthefield.Twofactsarecriticaltofindingthatthe  8  officersdiscretiononthescenewasproperlylimited:(1)thedecisiontosetuptheroadblockinthe $  firstinstancecannothavebeenmadebytheofficerorofficersactuallyestablishingthecheckpoint,   and(2)theofficersonthescenecannotdecideforthemselvestheprocedurestobeusedinoperating   theroadblock.Inallcases,therefore,theStatemustshowthatsomeauthoritysuperiortotheofficers   inthefielddecidedtoestablishtheroadblock,particularlyastoitstimeandlocation,andthatthe   officersadheredtoneutralstandardspreviouslyfixedbyadministrativedecisionorregulation.See p id.passim.Tobeclear,thesefactorsaresoessentialtoareasonableroadblockthattheabsenceof \ eitherofthemwillnecessarilyresultintheinvalidationofthestops. H     &  FACTORSMINIMIZINGTHERISKOFARBITRARYINTRUSION  p    Applyingthesecriteriatotheroadblockinthiscase,weinitiallyfindthattheroadblock'   H lackedmanyoftheattributesnecessarytominimizetheriskofarbitraryintrusionintothepersonal 4 libertyandprivacyofthemotorists.ConsistentwithArticleI,section7,theofficersdidwear   officialuniforms,andtheofficershadonemarkedpatrolcarateachendoftheroadblockwith   flashingemergencylights.However,contrarytoourdecisioninDowney,theroadblockwas  operatedwithlittleregardtothesafetyoftheapproachingmotorists.Althoughtheroadblockwas  conductedatnight,therecordshowsthattheofficersdidnotuseanylightingseparatefromthe  patrolcars,anditappearsthattheofficerscouldsafelystopcarsonlyononesideoftheroad. l FurthercontrarytoDowney,theofficersplacednoadvancedwarningsignsgivingapproaching X  motoristsnoticeoftheupcomingroadblock.Notonlyisthisrequirementespeciallyimportantto D! ensurethesafetyofmotorists,butthepresenceofadvancedwarningsignsalso reassure[s]motorists 0"  thatthestopisdulyauthorized,therebydiminishingthepossibilityofsurprise,concern,orfright. #l! SeeIngersoll,743P.2dat1316.AlthoughtheConstitutiondoesnotrequireallofthesespecific $X" measures,wef  g f  g f  g cannotf  g Ԁconceiveofareasonableroadblockthatf  g f  g f  g failstof  g Ԁadequatelyprotectthesafety $D # ofthepassingmotorists. %0!$   Further,wefindthatnoadvancepublicitywasgiventothepublicatlargethatthehighway '#& patrolintendedtoconductaroadblockinthisarea.Weemphasizethattheadvancepublicity (#' requirementofDowneywasnotmerelyanafterthoughtoraconstitutionallyneedlessrestriction )$( uponotherwiselegitimatelawenforcementactivity.Apartfromtheimportantdeterrenceaspects |*%) discussedearlier,advancedpublicityalsogivescitizenstheimportantchoiceofnotexposing h+&* themselvestostateintrusionwithoutpriorsuspicionofwrongdoing.Moreover,citizenswhoare  awarethattheymaybesubjecttoroadblockshavemoreofabasisto anticipateandunderstandthe  circumstancesofthestop.SeeJonesv.State,459So.2d1068,1076(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984).  Althoughtheabsenceofpublicitywillnotinvariablyrenderacheckpointinvalidf  g f  g Ԁifothermeasures t satisfytheseconcernsf  g ,theadvancedpublicityrequirementofDowneymustneverthelessberegarded ` asakeyaspectofaminimallyintrusiveroadblock.Accordingly,wefindthattheabsenceofmany L  oftheattributesnecessarytominimizetheriskofarbitraryinterferencewiththelibertyandprivacy 8  ofmotoristsweighsheavilyagainstfindingthisroadblocktobeconstitutionallyreasonable. $ t   &  PRIORADMINISTRATIVEAPPROVALANDADEQUATE  L  SUPERVISORYAUTHORITY  8  &  Mostimportantly,however,therecorddoesnotshowthatthecheckpointwas established' 5   andoperatedinaccordancewithpredeterminedoperationalguidelinesandsupervisoryauthority.   First,wefindnoevidencethatthisroadblockwasinitiallyestablishedwithprioradministrative   authority.LieutenantHilltestifiedthathesupervisedtheroadblockduringhisshiftuponordersfrom   LieutenantPhillips,andtheCourtofCriminalAppealsfoundthatthisfactsuggestedthepresence p ofprioradministrativeapproval.However,ourreviewoftherecordindicatesthatitwasLieutenant \ PhillipswhoestablishedthisroadblockinthefirstinstanceandthatLieutenantHillwasonly H responsibleforitscontinuation. +#  9      ׀Downeyclearlycondemnsthesamepersonholdingthepowerto 4 approveandestablisharoadblock,andthedisconcertingappearanceofthisfactinanyrecordis  p necessarilyfataltoafindingofreasonablenessunderArticleI,section7.  \   WerecognizethepossibilitythatLieutenantPhillipsf  g f  g f  g obtainedf  g Ԁadministrativeapprovalprior 4 tohisestablishingoftheroadblock,butabsolutelynoproofofthisfactexistsintherecord.   Importantly,LieutenantHillwasonlyabletospeculatethatsuchmayhavebeenthecase,andthe   Statedidnotintroduceanyothertestimonyordocumentationtoshowthatadministrativeapproval  existedinfact.AlthoughtheStatef  g f  g couldhavecalledawitnesswithactualknowledge,suchas  LieutenantPhillips,f  g f  g f  g orotherwisef  g Ԁintroducedapaperrecordofthepriorapprovalfromthe  DepartmentofSafety,itdidneither.BecausetheStatehastheburdenofestablishingthe l reasonablenessoftheroadblock,itmustintroducesomeproofofprioradministrativeapproval X  beforecourtsmayconcludethatsuchwasthecase.Unliketheintermediatecourt,weattributelittle D! significancetothefactthatLieutenantHillwasunconnectedwiththeestablishmentofthis 0"  roadblock,andwearenotwillingtoequatethiscircumstancewithactualproofofprior #l!  administrativeapprovalasrequiredbyDowney.BecausetheStateintroducednootherproofofprior $X" administrativeapproval,wefindthatthepreponderanceoftheevidenceestablishesthatthe  roadblockwasnotinitiatedinconformitywithconstitutionalrequirements.     Second,therecordshowsthatthediscretionoftheofficersonthesceneofthisroadblockwas t notproperlylimitedorsupervisedandthattheofficersactuallyconductingthecheckpointhad ` virtuallycompletediscretiontodecideforthemselvestheprocedurestobeusedinitsoperation. L  AlthoughtheDepartmentofSafetyhasissuedadministrativeguidelinestobefollowedatdrivers 8  licenseroadblocks,theextremedeviationsfromGeneralOrder410inthiscasedemonstratethat $ t adequatesupervisionwaspracticallynonexistent.DespiteLieutenantHillsaffirmativeobligation  ` toensurecompliancewithGeneralOrder410,seeGeneralOrder410,para.V.C.(effectiveSept.30,  L  1995),therecordindicatesthatthefollowingviolationsoftheGeneralOrderoccurred:(1)officers  8  usedtheroadblocktosearchforcrimesotherthanviolationsofdriverslicenserequirements,as $  evidencedbythepresenceofadrugdogandthepicturesofthe NorthChattanoogarapist,id.para.   VI.A;(2)theofficersdidnotclearlyconveytheirintenttocheckforvaliddriverslicensestoall   motoristsastheywerestopped,id.para.VI.B;(3)theofficersdidnotpostanysignstowarn   motoriststhataroadblockwasahead,id.para.VI.D.2;(4)officersotherthanuniformed   commissionedofficersoftheTennesseeHighwayPatrolstoppedvehiclesanddemandedexhibition p oftheoperatorslicense,id.para.VII.B.2; +#  10      ׀(5)theofficersdidnotuseorangesafetyvests,id.para. \ VII.D;(6)theofficersdidnotuseorangeorredflashlightbatons,id.para.VII.D;and(7)theofficers H didnotusespotlightsatthescenetogiveproperillumination,id.para.VII.F.Hadthesupervision 4 oftheofficersonthescenebeenadequate,wehavenodoubtthatmany,ifnotall,oftheseviolations  p wouldhavebeeneitherpreventedorcorrected.Od +#  11        \   Moreover,thetestimonygivenatthesuppressionhearingdemonstratesthatLieutenantHill 4 didnotadequatelysupervisetheconductoftheofficersduringtheappellantsstop.Forexample,   SergeantShortoftheChattanoogaPoliceDepartmenttestifiedthatLieutenantHillwascompletely   unawareofthefollowingcircumstances:thattheappellantscarhadbeenpulledoversolelyonthe  authorityoflocalofficers;thattheofficersdetectedthesmellofmarijuanaintheappellantscar;that  theofficersconductedacaninesniffoftheappellantscar;orthattheofficersproceededtosearch  thecar.ItwasonlyaftertheappellantsarrestthatLieutenantHillwasmadeawareofthese l proceedings.SergeantShortfurthertestifiedthatduringthistime,LieutenantHillwas standingin X  theroad,apparentlyunconcernedwithwhatthelocalofficersweredoingaroundhim. D! Ї  Weconcludethattheextremedeviationsfromtheadministrativeguidelines,coupledwith  testimonyaboutthenatureofthesupervision,demonstratethatthediscretionoftheofficersonthe  scenewasnotlimitedinanymeaningfulsense.OurdecisioninDowneywasadamantthatgenuine  limitationsontheofficersdiscretionwasanessentialcomponentoftheroadblockexceptionto t ArticleI,section7,andwerejectedtheviewthattheabsenceofformal,supervisoryparticipation ` wasentitledto littleweight.945S.W.2dat110.Tothecontrary,activeandcarefulsupervision L  iscriticaltotheconstitutionalreasonablenessofanyroadblock,andbecausetherecordindicatesthat 8  thediscretionoftheofficersinthiscasewasnotlimitedinanysignificantmanner,weconcludethat $ t thisroadblockfailsanalysisunderourinterpretationofArticleI,section7inDowney.  `   &  THEEFFECTOFASUBTERFUGEORPRETEXT  8  E;  Finally,thepreponderanceoftheevidencesuggeststhattheroadblockinthiscasewas   actuallyoperatedforpurposesotherthanasadriverslicensecheckpoint.InDowney,wealluded' T;   tothefactthatanostensiblylegitimateroadblockoperatedasapretextorsubterfugetofurther   illegitimatelawenforcementpracticesmaybeunreasonableundertheTennesseeConstitution.945   S.W.2dat111.However,wedidnotactuallyreachthisissueinDowney,becausetheactualpurpose p ofthedriverslicenseroadblockinthatcasewastodetectanddeterdrunkdrivers"alegitimateand \ f  g f  g sufficientlyf  g compellingstateinterest.BecausewefoundthattheprimarypurposeoftheDowney H roadblockwasf  g f  g Ԁconstitutionallyf  g Ԁpermissible,theanalysisofthatcasemoreproperlyfocusedonthe 4 lackofadequateadministrativeandsupervisoryoversight.  p   Nevertheless,weacknowledgedthen,andwereiteratenow,thatacheckpointdesignedor H operatedtofurtherillegitimatelawenforcementpracticesunderthepretextofalawfulpurposeis 4 unreasonableunderArticleI,section7,irrespectiveofotherindiciaofreasonableness.Ifthe   subterfugeexistsontheadministrativeorplanninglevel,suchthattheroadblockisprimarily   designedtofurtheranoncompellingstateinterest,theroadblockwillnecessarilyfailforlackofa  sufficientlycompellingstateinterest.SeeEdmond,531U.S.atf  g f  g f  g 44,47f  g .Furthermore,operationof  aroadblocksoastopursueillegitimateobjectivesisvirtuallyincontrovertibleevidencethat  inadequatelevelsofcontrolandsupervisionoftheofficersonthescenearebeingmaintained. l Downey,945S.W.2dat111.Whilewewillnotseektodeterminetheintentoftheindividual X  officersinthefieldonceasufficientlycompellingstateinterestisfound,cf.Vineyard,958S.W.2d D! 736,theactionsoftheofficersandthecircumstancessurroundingthestopsshouldbeconsideredas 0"  evidenceofinadequateadministrativeandsupervisoryoversight. #l!   Ourcloseexaminationoftherecordrevealsmuchevidencetoshowthatthisdriverslicense $D # roadblockwasdesignedandoperatedasamethodtopursueobjectivesotherthandetectingand %0!$ deterringunlicenseddrivers.Ontheadministrativelevel,thetimeandplaceoftheroadblockdonot &"% seemcalculated,atleastinanintuitivesense,todetectunlicenseddrivers,andthefactthattheState '#& introducednoproofthatthetimeandsiteoftheroadblockwerechosenbecauseoftheireffectiveness (#'  indetectinganddeterringunlicenseddriversfurtherindicatesthatthe driverslicensecheckpoint )$( wasasubterfuge.$ +#  12      ׀Ontheoperationallevel,therecordshowsthatatleastoneofficeronthescene   possessedandusedadrugdog,andanotherofficerseemstohaveconductedtheroadblockforthe  purposesofapprehendingafleeingfelon.Becauseneitherofthesepurposesisarguablyrelatedto  anyinterestservedbyacheckpointestablishedtodetectanddeterunlicenseddrivers,seeUnited t Statesv.MoralesZamora,974F.2d149,153(10thCir.1992)(findingpretextualdriverslicense ` checkpoint,inpart,whenofficersbroughtdrugdogtoscenebeforecarswerestopped),onemay L  inferthatatleastsomeofficerswerepursuinginvestigatoryagendasthatwerewhollydistinctand 8  apartfromtheStatesclaimedinterest. $ t   Whileofficersarenotrequiredtolooktheotherwaywhentheylegitimatelydiscover  L  violations,theymaynot,asappearstohavehappenedhere,activelyseekoutothercriminal  8  wrongdoingundertheguiseofcheckingfordriverslicenses.( +#  13      ׀InStatev.Vineyard,958S.W.2d $  730(Tenn.1997),weheldthatanofficerssubjectiveintentionsinstoppinganautomobile,no   matterhowquestionable,wouldnotaffectthevalidityofthestopsolongasprobablecauseexisted   tobelievethatthedefendantviolatedthetrafficcode.958S.W.2dat737.Wereasonedthatthe   dangerspresentedbyanindividualofficersinvestigatoryagendaweremitigatedinsuchcases    because [t]heprobablecauserequirementconstrainstheexerciseofpolicediscretionandsafeguards p thecitizenryagainstarbitraryintrusions.Id.at735(citingWhrenv.UnitedStates,517U.S.806  (1996)).     However,becauseroadblocksareoperatedwithouttheprotectionsprovidedbytheprobable t causerequirement,courtsmustassumeaspecialroleinensuringthatconstitutionalsafeguardsare ` noterodedbysubterfugeorpretext.Cf.UnitedStatesv.Huguenin,154F.3d547,555(6thCir. L  1998)( WebelievetheFourthAmendmentrequiresthatpolicedeceptionandsubterfugemustbe 8  carefullyscrutinizedinregardtopretextualcheckpoints,ascheckpointsconstituteanexceptionto $ t theFourthAmendmentsrequirementforawarrantandprobablecause.).Whenpoliceofficersare  ` permitted,eitherthroughadministrativedesignorsupervisoryneglect,toactivelyengagein  L  suspicionlessinvestigationofcriminalactivitywhollyunrelatedtothepurposesoftheroadblock,  8  theconstitutionalprotectionsaffordedbyArticleI,section7arerenderedutterlywithouteffector $  meaning.Tobesure,ourdecisioninDowneyallowinganarrowexceptionforsobrietycheckpoints   wasnotmeantasasignaltolawenforcementofficersthatacitizensconstitutionalprotections   evaporateduponbeinghaltedataroadblock.   f  g   Consideringallofthecircumstancessurroundingthisroadblock,wemustconcludethatthe p preponderanceoftheevidenceestablishesthattheoperationofthisroadblockviolatedminimal \ constitutionalrequirements.First,thelevelofintrusionintothelibertyandprivacyofthecitizens H stoppedwasbeyondthatcharacterizedasreasonablebyDowney.Second,theStateofferedno 4 evidencetoshowprioradministrativeapproval,andbecausetheStatehastheburdenofestablishing  p thereasonablenessoftheroadblock,wewillnotpresumethatsuchwasthecase.Third,therecord  \ demonstratesthattheofficersonthescenedecidedforthemselvestheproperprocedurestobe H followedandthattheseofficerswerenotadequatelysupervised.Finally,therecordcontainsmuch 4 evidencetoshowthatthedriverslicenseroadblockwasinitiallyestablishedandoperatedinthe   fieldasamethodtopursueobjectivesotherthantodetectanddeterunlicenseddrivers.Accordingly,   weholdthatthisroadblockrepresentedanunreasonableinterferencewiththelibertyandprivacyof  thecitizensstoppedinviolationofArticleI,section7oftheTennesseeConstitution.    &  CONCLUSION  l     Insummary,weholdthatthedriverslicenseroadblockinthiscaseviolatestheprotections'l;] D! againstunreasonableseizuresfoundinArticleI,section7oftheTennesseeConstitution.First,the 0"  Statehasfailedtodemonstrateasufficientlycompellingstateinteresttojustifysuspicionlessstops #l! tocheckdriverslicenses.Second,evenassumingthepresenceofacompellingstateinterest,the $X" Statehasnotshownthatroadblocksare sufficientlyproductiveinachievingthatinterestsuchthat $D # theycould qualifyasareasonablelawenforcementpractice.Finally,wefindthattheoperation %0!$ ofthisroadblockwasnotconductedaccordingtopredeterminedoperationalguidelinesorwith &"% adequatesupervisoryauthoritythatwouldminimizetheriskofarbitraryintrusiononindividual '#& libertyandlimitthediscretionofofficersatthescene.Accordingly,thedecisionofthetrialcourt (#' tosuppressallevidencederivedfromtheroadblockisaffirmed.Wereversethejudgmentofthe )$( CourtofCriminalAppealsanddismisstheindictmentagainsttheappellant. |*%)  h+&*   CostsofthisappealshallbepaidbytheStateofTennessee.     `      `     h     _________________________________ L     `     h     WILLIAMM.BARKER,JUSTICE