WPCb xC,Gq}:{[7zwu崄(\tEC菃]o+9jlcA\Swk&{;z(ٺV ' H8݃Z6ľ ݦ^Sn(xxx9y|5gPtUs >|$N ]gStiTRGΆ:0FZ~?ԧT/y.L1=[U`E׶ @~Fa M‚鬮/ϛVXG,46~4, Z9ZFR :Ftܨ,*k>dϳ{WZjŜ\>y?4:"WUYP&# 0!yӤ&"tHa^t9.iCl@\\!Q$-c@x:!jg6n _d9%uMUJRLzy̬<~Z#U N % 0: U:; U@u ^ w 4   m  0~ 0D N   s b- BEHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,,cAZ"Arial Regular(9 Z(Times New Roman "++s B+pf3|xU   (.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0     ($USUS.,    1    _XX ` SuchaconclusiondoesnotrequireeitheranexpansionorrevisiontotheDowneyanalysis.  Instead,itistheapplicationofDowneytoacompletelydifferentsetofcircumstancesthatwarrantsthisresult.   ($USUS.,    2    _ ` XXIamalsooftheviewthatthepracticaleffectofthemajoritysholdingcorrectlymakestheStates  interestindriverslicenseroadblocksallbutimpossibletoestablishandisthustantamounttoaperseholding.- - ##\d# d !USUS.,  _XXXXr*XX8XXdd8      @7 7 #tr*=#ttINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE  @!May2,2001Session $ @S S  STATEOFTENNESSEEV.LARRYALLENHICKS  H #XXXt\#@  AppealByPermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  n @ CriminalCourtforHamiltonCounty  Z   No.2217170 @` Hon.DouglasA.Meyer,Judge  F tXXX@ __________________________ F  #XXXtu#@u u No.E199900957SCR11CVFiledSeptember11,_2001_Ԉ n  @ ________________________________  F #XXXXXX##Anderson,E.Riley,C.J.,concurring.       Themajorityconcludesthatthedriverslicenseroadblockinthiscasewasestablishedand ~ operatedinviolationofthisCourtsdecisioninStatev.Downey,945S.W.2d102(Tenn.1997)and, j therefore,violatedarticleI,7oftheTennesseeConstitution.AlthoughIagreewiththeresultand V muchofthemajoritys analysisunderDowney,Iwriteseparatelytoexpressmyviewthatroadblocks B usedtoseizemotoristsforthepurposeofinspectingdriverslicensesareperseunconstitutional 2 underarticleI,7oftheTennesseeConstitution. n   Asthemajorityobserves,articleI,7oftheTennesseeConstitution,liketheFourth F AmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution,prohibitsunreasonablesearchesandseizuresandalso 2 imposeslimitsonsearchesandseizuresinordertopreventarbitraryinterferencebylawenforcement   withtheprivacyandpersonallibertyofindividuals.Id.at104.Ingeneral,aseizureofanindividual !  requiresprobablecausetobelievethattheindividualhascommittedacriminaloffense.SeeBeck " v.Ohio,379U.S.89,91,85S.Ct.223,225,13L.Ed.2d142(1964).Aseizureshortofanarrest #  maybemadeonlessergroundsthanprobablecause,butstillrequiresareasonablesuspicionof ~$! criminalactivitybasedon_articulable_Ԁfacts.SeeTerryv.Ohio,392U.S.1,21,88S.Ct.1868,1880, j% " 20L.Ed.2d889(1968);Statev.Simpson,968S.W.2d776,780(Tenn.1998). V&!#   TheanalysisinDowneyemphasizedthat aroadblockseizure...isadeparturefromthese .(~#% fundamentalconstitutionalprinciplesbecauseit permitsofficerstostopandquestionpersons )j$& whoseconductisordinary,innocent,andfreefromsuspicion.Downey,945S.W.2dat104.We *V%' thereforeheldthatadeterminationofwhethersucharoadblockseizurepassesconstitutionalmuster *B&( underarticleI,7oftheTennesseeConstitutionrequirescarefulconsiderationof(1)thepublic +.')  interestallegedlyservedbytheroadblock,(2)thedegreetowhichthepublicinterestisadvancedby ,(*        8dXd8   _theroadblock,and(3)theseverityoftheinterferencewiththeindividuallibertyofthosesubjected  totheroadblock.Id.at10708.     InapplyingthisanalysisinDowney,itisimmediatelyapparentthatwegavegreatweightto t thepublicinterestservedbyasobrietyroadblock: ` 8  8`   WerecognizetheStatescompellinginterestindetectingand 8  deterringmotoristswhodrivewhileundertheinfluenceofalcohol. $ t Thedrunkdrivercutsawideswathofdeath,pain,grief,anduntold  ` injuryacrosstheroadsofTennessee.Thecarnageandtragedyis  L  recordeddailyinournewspapersandonourtelevisionscreens.  8  Indeed,theLegislatureatnearlyeverysessionhasstrengthenedthe $  drivingundertheinfluencelawsinrecognitionofthestrongpublic   interestinsolvingtheproblem.Noonecandisputethetragedyand   magnitudeofthedrunkdrivingproblemortheStatesinterestin   eradicatingit. ` x` x Id.at104.Asthemajorityobserves,theobviousandcompellingpublicinterestindrunkdriving H casesistopreventtheimminentdangerofdeathorseriousbodilyinjuryposedbymotoristswho 4 drivewhileimpairedandlacktheabilitytooperatetheirvehiclesinasafemanner.   p   Inaddition,despitetheweightyandcompellingpublicinterestinDowney,wedidnotsimply L approveofanyandallsobrietyroadblocks.Innocasedoesthepublicinterestalonejustifyasearch 8 orseizure!theends,inotherwords,donotjustifyanyandallmeans.Instead,as themajority $ indicates,weheldinDowneythatthepublicinterestmustalsobeadvancedbytheroadblockand  thattheroadblockmustbeestablishedandoperatedinaccordancewith predeterminedoperational  guidelinesandsupervisoryauthoritythatminimizetheriskofarbitraryintrusiononindividualsand  limitthediscretionoflawenforcementofficersatthescene.Id.at104.Aftercarefullyconsidering  thesefactorsinDowney,weconcludedthatalthoughsobrietyroadblocksarenotperse t unconstitutional,thespecificroadblockinquestionwasnotestablishedandoperatedinamanner `  thatlimitedthediscretionofindividualofficersatthesceneandthusviolatedarticleI,7ofthe L! TennesseeConstitution.Id. 8"    Incontrast,applicationoftheDowneyanalysisyieldsadifferentresultwhenappliedto $`" roadblocksusedtostopmotoristsforthepurposeofcheckingdriverslicenses. #  1      ׀Withregardtothe $L # firstDowneyfactor,forexample, theStateassertsthegeneralargument thatdriverslicense %8!$ roadblocks,likesobrietyroadblocks,servethepublicinterestofmaintaininghighwaysafety.The &("% dissentlikewisetheorizesthatsuchroadblocksservea criticalinterestinprotectingitscitizensfrom '#& driverswhoareeithernotqualifiedtodriveorhavebeenforbiddentodrivebecauseofarecordof ($' drivingoffenses.NeithertheStatenorthedissentofferorcitetoany empiricalevidence,anecdotal  evidence,orevenpersuasiveargumentinsupportoftheirassertions.    Inmyview,thereisnobasisuponwhichtoreasonablyconcludethatamotoristwhoisnot x inpossessionofavaliddriverslicensenecessarilyposesanimmediatedangerofdeathorserious d bodilyinjurygreatenoughtowarrantthesuspicionlessstopofalldriversatacheckpoint.Indeed, P  even thepossessionofavaliddriverslicensedoesnotnecessarily assurethesafetyandfitness of <  anymotorist.InTennessee,forexample,motoristswhoobtainadriverslicenseattheageof16 , | mayneveragainduringtheirlifetimes betestedorexaminedtoensuretheir continuedskilland  h fitness.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.5550322(1998&Supp.2000).Inshort,thepresentcaseiseasily  X  distinguishablefromthesobrietycheckpointsatissueinDowney.TheStatehas presentedno  D  empirical evidence,anecdotalevidence,orpersuasive argumentthatwoulddemonstratethatthe 0   publicinterestservedbydriverslicenseroadblocksevenremotely approachesthatservedby   sobrietyroadblocks.       IdifferfromthemajoritysanalysistotheextentthatitassertstheStateshouldhavean   opportunitytoestablishasufficientpublicinterestsupportingdriverslicensecheckpointsinafuture  case.Althoughthedefendantsmotiontosuppressdidnotexpresslyallegethatdriverslicense p roadblocksareperseunconstitutional,itdidbroadlyallegethatthe roadblockwasconductedin \ violationofthepredeterminedoperationalguidelines,andinviolationofArticleI,section7ofthe H TennesseeConstitution.Theissuehasbeenfullybriefedandarguedonappealwithoutobjection 4 bytheState.Moreover,IwouldnotethattheStateestablisheditsinterestinDowneynotby  p introducingempiricalevidenceinthetrialcourtbutbypresentinganecdotalevidenceandasserting  \ persuasivearguments.Neitherwerepresentedinthiscase. #  2       H   WithregardtothesecondDowneyfactor,Iseriouslyquestionwhetherdriverslicense   roadblocksarenecessarytoadvanceanyallegedpublicinterest.TheStatesargument,mirroredby   thedissent, thatsuchroadblocksaretheonlymeansthroughwhichtoenforcetherequirementthat  amotoristpossessavaliddriverslicenseisflawedinatleasttworespects.First,asapractical  matter,thedriverslicenserequirementisamongthemostenforcedoflawsasitsproductionis  compelledfromanymotoristwhoisstoppedforanyandalltrafficinfractions.Second,andmore p  importantly,thesimpleassertionthatthereisnoothermeansthroughwhichtoenforcealawas \! effectivelyasusingaroadblockinnowaycreatesacompellingpublicinterestfordoingso!theend, H"  inotherwords,shouldnotanddoesnotjustifythemeans. 4#!   Finally,inlightofmyconclusionswithrespecttothefirsttwoDowneyfactors,Iwould  %\ # furtherobservethatevenadriverslicenseroadblockthatminimizedtheriskofarbitraryintrusion %H!$ onindividualsandlimitedthediscretionoflawenforcementofficersatthescenewouldfailtosatisfy &4"% articleI,7.Inshort,theintrusivenessofanyroadblockthatneitherservesacompellingpublic ' #& interestnoradvancesthatinterestisbydefinitionexcessive. ( $' Ї  Inreachingmyconclusions,IstressthatourdecisioninDowneyupholdingsobriety  roadblocksundercertainlimitedcircumstancesshouldbeinterpretedasaveryrareandlimited  departurefromconstitutionalprinciplesthatrequireaseizuretobebasedonprobablecauseor  reasonablesuspicionofcriminalactivity.Inmyview,thereisnosimilarcompellingpublicinterest t thatisadvancedthroughtheuseofroadblockstoseizemotoristsfortheinspectionofdrivers ` licenses.Iwouldthereforeholdthatdriverslicenseroadblocksareperseunconstitutionalunder L  articleI,7oftheTennesseeConstitution.Inallotherrespects,Iagreewiththemajoritys opinion. 8  IamauthorizedtostatethatJusticeBirchjoinsinthisseparateconcurringopinion. ( x    `     h     ____________________________________ (     `     h     E.RILEYANDERSON,CHIEFJUSTICE