WPC^= R~=FBHө:jG/d0I*.-]p!5d)iVㄖ0xbu$Iz-Yd8ZXFr٬ybMrćNo 6Y%n%wʆbDvZJuF븎ghmZd[xxz5$* [gOjZźk}̻wnRN* fmɩ+<35BddDڮamnm,˺~WF_vr4R܌6Ft4Mz1PE|F W^hZ rv Ų 6$c &lci%@ qhIa#~ze5Q}d2DpEˁ bQq~\]V5$~h*Iz? ̆QNm@Y1hZ)H[, ڭ@6k4֜кWnR`/+^1b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz   n 4U@N 0 DFE&w, -I-v0v0v0\66666666666bS8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8 0 [8[8[8[8 BF9F9 0c9 D3: D-:: 0Kg:g: AS:; 0; 0Do< A<HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0++s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularB+ 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  R$      10  U  _UUInterestingly,LieutenantHilloperatedthesobrietycheckpointwhichresultedinourdecisioninDowney.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z(Times New Roman (#$  0    R$      6  U  _UUJusticeBarkersopinionreliesuponEdmondtosupportitsconclusion.MyreadingofEdmondrevealsthat  itinnowaysupportsthepremisethatlicensecheckpointsareunconstitutional.TheCourtinEdmondverycarefullyand t clearlyindicatedthatitsholdingdidnotaffectthevalidityoflicensecheckpoints.Inaddition,infootnote2,theCourt 8 pointedoutthattheCityofIndianapolishadconcededthatnarcoticsdetectionwastheprimaryprogrammaticpurpose L ofthecheckpointsatissueinthatcase.TheCourtbaseditsdecisionontheprogrammaticpurposeofthecheckpoints,  notonanindividualcheckpoint,so,ofcourse,theCourtdidnotconsiderthespecificsofhowthecheckpointswere  established.TheCourtspecificallyrecognizedthatit neednotdecidewhethertheStatemayestablishacheckpoint H  programwiththeprimarypurposeofcheckinglicensesordriversobrietyandasecondarypurposeofinterdicting  \ narcotics.Edmond,531U.S.at47,121_S.Ct_.at457.ThisstatementclearlyindicatesthattheCourtviewslicense   checkpointsasconstitutionallyvalidinthesamewayitviewsdriversobrietychecksconstitutionallyvalid.TheEdmond    decisionsimplydoesnotsupportthemajoritysconclusions.  R$      1  U  _Downey,945S.W.2dat10910(adoptingguidelinesfromIngersollv.Palmer,743P.2d1299(Cal.1987);  Statev._Loyd_,530N.W.2d708(Iowa1995);Statev._Deskins_,673P.2d1174(_Kan_.1983)).  R$      2  U  _Asapracticalmatter,themajoritysholdinginthisregardhaslittleimpactsincesobrietycheckpointsstillmay  beconstitutionallymaintained,solongastheycomportwiththeguidelinesinDowney.Obviously,driverslicensescan t beverifiedatsobrietycheckpoints.  R$      4  U  _Presumablylicensecheckpointswouldbefoundunconstitutionalintheotherfourstatesthatfindsobriety  checkpointsunconstitutional.SeeSitzv.DepartmentofStatePolice,506N.W.2d209(Mich.1993);_Ascher_Ԁv._Commr_ t ofPublicSafety,519N.W.2d183(Minn.1994);_Pimental_Ԁv.DepartmentofTransp.,561A.2d1348(R.I.1989);Seattle 8 v._Mesiani_,755P.2d1057(Wash.1988).UUMassachusettsistheonlyotherstatesupremecourtwhichhassuggestedthat L licensecheckpointsmaybevulnerabletoconstitutionalattack.#UU#ԀSeeCommonwealthv.Rodriguez,722N.E.2d429,433  (Mass.2000). " R$      5  U  _UnitedStatesv._Galindo_ԄGonzales,142F.3d1217(10thCir.1998);_Merrett_Ԁv.Moore,58F.3d1547(11th  Cir.1995);UnitedStatesv._Trevino_,60F.3d333(7thCir.1995);UnitedStatesv._McFayden_,865F.2d1306(D.C.Cir. t 1989). v R$      3  U  _See_McInnish_Ԁv.State,584So.2d935(Ala._Crim_.App.1991);Campv.State,764S.W.2d463(Ark.Ct.App.  1989);Peoplev.Alvarez,926P.2d365(Cal.1996);Peoplev.Andrews,484P.2d1207(Colo.1971);Howardv. t _Voshell_,621A.2d804(Del.Super.1992);Duncanv.UnitedStates,629A.2d1(D.C.App.1993);_Rennard_Ԁv.State, 8 675So.2d1006(Fla.Ct.App.1996);_LaFontaine_Ԁv.State,497S.E.2d367(Ga.1998);Peoplev.Bartley,486N.E.2d L 880(Ill.1985);Statev._Loyd_,530N.W.2d708(Iowa1995);Statev.Barker,850P.2d885(_Kan_.1993);_Kinslow_Ԁv.  Commonwealth,660S.W.2d677(Ky.Ct.App.1983);Statev.Jackson,764So.2d64(La.2000);Statev._Cloukey_,486  A.2d143(Me.1985);Millerv.State,373So.2d1004(Miss.1979);Statev.Severance,237A.2d683(N.H.1968);State H  v._Kabayama_,226A.2d760(N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1967),affirmedwithoutopinionby246A.2d714(N.J.1968);  \ Statev.Valencia_Olaya_,736P.2d495(N.M.Ct.App.1987);Statev.Grooms,483S.E.2d445(N.C.Ct.App.1997);   Statev._Wetzel_,456N.W.2d115(N.D.1990);Statev.Orr,745N.E.2d1036(Ohio2001);Statev._Shankle_,647P.2d    959(Or.Ct.App.1982);Commonwealthv.Blouse,611A.2d1177(Pa.1992);Murphyv.State,864S.W.2d70(Tex. X   Ct.App.1992);Lowev.Commonwealth,337S.E.2d273(Va.1985);Statev.Davis,464S.E.2d598(W.Va.1995).  l  ЀItisalsosignificanttonotethattheTennesseeCourtofCriminalAppealspreviouslyhasupheldtheconstitutionality  0  oflicensecheckpoints.See,e.g.,Statev.JoeW.Steward,No.M199901284CCAR3CD,2000WL1246436(Tenn.   _Crim_.App.,Aug.18,2000)(perm.app.pending);UUԀStatev.DavidLynn_Hagy_,No.03C019505CR00152,1995WL h  71(Tenn._Crim_.App.,Dec.5,1995)(Barker,J.,author)(noapp.filed);Statev.DavidArthur_McCarter_,No.03C01 ,|  9406CR00240,1995WL103704(Tenn._Crim_.App.,Mar.13,1995)(perm.app.deniedTenn.July10,1995).#UUj # # R$      7  U  _UUEffectivelythemajorityisinterpretingtheUnitedStateConstitutiontoprovidegreaterprotectionthanthe  UnitedStatesSupremeCourtsownfederalconstitutionalprecedentshaveprovided,eventhoughthemajorityclearly t hasnoauthoritytodoso.SeeArkansasv.Sullivan,__U.S.__,121S.Ct.1876,149L.Ed.2d994(2001)(holding 8 thattheArkansasSupremeCourtmaynotinterprettheUnitedStatesConstitutiontoprovidegreaterprotectionthanthe L  UnitedStatesSupremeCourtsownfederalconstitutionalprecedentsprovide). w R$      8  U  _UUInterestingly#UU~#,themajorityattemptstolimittheshowingitadoptsto_suspicionless_,nonemergencyinvestigatory  roadblocksandattemptstodistinguishfixedweighandinspectionstationsestablishedbystatute.Withallduerespect, t thisisadistinctionwithoutadifference.Certainlythestatesinterestinkeeping_unlicensed_Ԁdriversofftheroadwaysis 8 9 justasgreat,ifnotgreater,thantheinterestprotectedbytheweighandinspectionstationsestablishedbystatute.  Furthermore,Iknowofnoprincipleoflawthatsuggests_suspicionless_Ԁstopsauthorizedbystatutesaresubjecttoless t intensiveconstitutionalscrutinythanother_suspicionless_Ԁstops.Infact,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecisionin 8 Brown,whichstruckdownaTexasstatutethatwasappliedtoauthorize__Ԁ_suspicionless_Ԁdetentions,wouldseemtosuggest L thatthereisnoconstitutionaldifferencebetween_suspicionless_Ԁstopsauthorizedbystatuteandthoseinitiatedwithout  astatute.See,Brown,443U.S.at53,99S.Ct.at2640.UU R R$      9  U  _UU_Prouse_#UU~#,440U.S.at658,99S.Ct.at1398;_Hagy_,1995WL712355,*2.- -(|G2$ !.8X dd8         0  U d(|3w$ !.8X dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w$ !.8X dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8X dd8     _   X 8XXdd8X X =X dd=@ X INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#X h#Ԉ &   May2,2001Session L XXX  #X XXI#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.LARRYALLENHICKSXXX   J @@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  J CriminalCourtforHamiltonCounty  6 @@No.221717Hon.DouglasA.Meyer,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E199900957SCR11CDFiledSeptember11,_2001_   AV) ` dE<h` A i     #X XX#XX.X FrankF.Drowota,III,J.,concurringanddissenting. <   Iconcurintheresultreachedbythemajoritybecausetheevidenceinthisrecordestablishes P thattheoperation,location,anddurationofthislicensecheckpointwassolelywithinthediscretion < ofLieutenantRonnieHilloftheTennesseeHighwayPatrol.I,however,cannotagreewiththe ( analysisemployedbythemajoritytoreachthisresult.Themajoritysanalysisisanunnecessaryand  unwarrantedmodificationoftheanalysisadoptedinDowneywhicheffectivelyrenderslicense  checkpointsunconstitutional.Inmyview,licensecheckpointsarenotperseunconstitutional,  althoughtheymaybeadministeredinanunconstitutionalmanner,asinthiscase,whensupervisory  approvalofthelocationandtimeofthecheckpointisnotsought,and/orthecheckpointisnot t conductedinaccordancewithanadministrativeplancontainingexplicitlimitationsontheconduct ` anddiscretionofofficersinthefield. L  @& Analysis  $"t!   Thefactsofthiscasearelargelyundisputedandaccuratelystatedbythemajority.The #`" majorityandIdisagree,however,astotheproperinterpretationandapplicationofthelaw.InState #L# v.Downey,945S.W.2d102,11011(Tenn.1997),weconsideredaconstitutionalchallengeto $8 $ sobrietycheckpoints.Toanalyzethischallenge,weadoptedasthestandardfortheTennessee %$!% ConstitutionathreeprongedbalancingtestwhichpreviouslyhadbeenemployedbytheUnited &"& StatesSupremeCourttodeterminetheconstitutionalityofhighwaycheckpoints.SeeMichiganv. '"' Sitz,496U.S.444,110S.Ct.2481,110L.Ed.2d412(1990)(upholdingsobrietycheckpoints); (#( UnitedStatesv.Martinez_Fuerte_,428U.S.543,96S.Ct.3074,49L.Ed.2d1116(1976)(upholding )$) highwaycheckpointsneartheborderaimedatdetectingillegalaliens);SeealsoBrownv.Texas,443 p*%* U.S.47,99S.Ct.2637,61L.Ed.2d357(1979)(holdingthatapplicationofaTexasstatute \+&+ permittingdetentionandrequiringidentificationviolatestheFourthAmendmentifofficerslack H,', reasonablesuspicionforthedetention). 4-(- Ї  Thisbalancingtestrequiresconsiderationof (1)thegravityofthepublicconcernsserved  bytheroadblock;(2)thedegreetowhichtheroadblockadvancesthepublicinterests;and(3)the  severityoftheroadblocksinterferencewithanindividualslibertyorprivacyinterest.Downey,  945S.W.2dat107(quotingBrown,443U.S.at4051,99S.Ct.at2640). Acentralconcernin t balancingthesecompetingconsiderationsinavarietyofsettingshasbeentoassurethatan ` individualsreasonableexpectationofprivacyisnotsubjecttoarbitraryinvasionssolelyatthe L  unfettereddiscretionofofficersinthefield.945S.W.2dat107,(internalcitationsomitted).Inthe 8  highwaycheckpointcontext,thisconcernisalleviatedbyrequiringthatcheckpointsbecarriedout $ t pursuanttosupervisorycontrolandaplancontainingexplicitlimitationsontheconductand  ` discretionofindividualfieldofficers.SeeId.  L    ApplyingthistestinDowney,wedescribedas compelling,theStatesinterestindetecting $  anddeterringmotoristswhodrivewhileundertheinfluenceofalcohol.Moreover,werecognized   thatsobrietycheckpointseffectivelyadvancethisinterestandaidineliminatingthisseriouspublic   danger.Therefore,weheldthatsobrietycheckpointsareconstitutionalsolongastheyare    establishedandoperatedinamannerthatminimizesintrusionandlimitsdiscretion.Downey,945   S.W.2dat110.Toensurethatsuchcheckpointsimposeonlyminimalintrusiononindividual p privacyandlimitofficialdiscretion,weadoptedthefollowingguidelinesoriginallyarticulatedby \ theCalifornia,Iowa,andKansassupremecourts:_ #  1      _ H 8  Theguidelinesincludesupervisoryauthoritywhichcarefullytargetsthetimeand  p locationofroadblocksandestablishesneutralproceduresfortheiroperation.They  \ alsoincludeadequatewarnings,advancepublicity,minimizinglengthandnatureof H detention,adequatesafetyprecautions,andtheavailabilityoflessintrusivemethods 4 forcombatingtheproblem.    Id.at11011.    Downeyisaveryrecent,unanimous,andcomprehensivedecision.However,ratherthan  applyingthethreeprongedbalancingtestadoptedinDowney,themajoritystatesthatlicense l roadblocksareunconstitutionalunlesstheStateoffersspecificproofshowingthat X  8  driversnotpossessingalicenseareunabletosafelyoperatemotorvehiclesonthe 0"  roadsandhighwaysofhisstate;thatan_unlicensed_Ԁdriverinvariablypresentsan #l! imminentdangerofdeathorseriousbodilyinjurytootherdriversthatisnottypically $X" presentwithlicenseddrivers;andthatthesafetythreatfrom_unlicensed_Ԁdriversisof $D # suchamagnitudethattheproblem,coupledwithitsriskofharm,commands %0!$ heightenedattention.OnlywhenthisshowingismademaycourtsfindthattheState &"% hasasufficientlycompellinginteresttojustifymaintainingdriverslicense '#& roadblocks.(#'   ЇTheobviouseffectofthemajoritysadoptionofthisstandard!onethattheStatecannotpossibly  meet!istoholdthatdriverslicensecheckpointsareunconstitutionalinTennessee. #  2      ׀Indeed,two  membersoftheCourtexpressthisview.    Sucharesultclearlyiscontrarytotheoverwhelmingweightofauthority.Stateandfederal ` courtsalikealmostuniversallyemploythethreeprongedbalancingtestadoptedinDowneywhen L  analyzingtheconstitutionalityoflicensecheckpoints.See,e.g.,Statev.Orr,745N.E.2d1036, 8  103840(Ohio2001).Employingthistest,courtsinatleasttwentyfivestatesandtheDistrictof $ t Columbiahaveupheldsomeformoflicensecheckpoints._ #  3      _ԀThisnumberincludesonestatesupreme  ` courtwhichstruckdownsobrietycheckpointsonstateconstitutionalgrounds.SeeStatev.Koppel  L  499A.2d977,980(N.H.1985)(strikingdownsobrietycheckpointsbutfindinglicensecheckpoints  8  areasonablemeansofenforcingalegitimatestateinterestbecause,withoutsuchcheckpoints,most $  violationsareundetectable)._ #  4      _ԀInadditiontothemanystatecourts,atleastfourcircuitcourtsof   appealhaveupheldtheconstitutionalityoflicensecheckpoints._ #  5      _        WhiletheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasnotsquarelyaddressedthisissue,theCourt  concludedinDelawarev._Prouse_,440U.S.648,658,99S.Ct.1391,1398,59L.Ed.2d660(1979),  thatstateshavea vitalinterestinensuringthatonlythosequalifiedtodosoarepermittedtooperate  motorvehicles,thatthesevehiclesarefitforsafeoperation,andhencethatlicensing,registration, t andvehicleinspectionrequirementsareobserved.TheCourtalsosuggestedin_Prouse_that ` roadblocktypestopsforthepurposeofverifyingdriverslicensesandvehicleregistrationswould L  beconstitutionallypermissible.Id.,440U.S.at653,99S.Ct.at1401.Morerecently,inCityof 8  Indianapolisv.Edmond,531U.S.32,47,121S.Ct.447,457,148L.Ed.2d333(2000),theCourt $ t struckdowndruginterdictioncheckpointsimplementedprimarilytouncoverevidenceofcriminal  ` wrongdoing,butstressedthatitsholdingdidnotimplicatetheconstitutionalityoflicense  L  checkpoints:  8  8  Itgoeswithoutsayingthatourholdingtodaydoesnothingtoaltertheconstitutional   statusofthesobrietyandbordercheckpointsthatweapprovedinSitzandMartinez   _Fuerte_,orofthetypeoftrafficcheckpointthatwesuggestedwouldbelawfulin   _Prouse_.Theconstitutionalityofsuchcheckpointprogramsstilldependsona   balancingofthecompetinginterestsatstakeandtheeffectivenessoftheprogram.p   Id.(emphasisadded).Thisstatementstronglyindicatesthatwhentheissueissquarelypresented, H theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,applyingthesamestandardadoptedbythisCourtinDowney, 4 wouldupholdtheconstitutionalityoflicensecheckpoints_ #  6      _.  p ̀  IfullyrealizethisCourtisfreetointerpretourstateconstitutionalprovisionsasaffording H greaterprotectionsthanthoseaffordedbythefederalconstitution.However,wedeclinedtodoso 4 inDowneywhenweadoptedthethreeprongedfederaltestasthestandardfordeterminingthestate   constitutionalityofhighwaycheckpoints.Infact,westatedinDowneythat ArticleI,Section7is   identicalinintentandpurposewiththeFourthAmendment.945S.W.2dat106.Therefore,Iam  puzzledbythemajoritysdecisiontonowreinterpretDowneyasaffordinggreaterprotection.  #  7        Ї  Inaddition,amoreexpansiveinterpretationofArticleI,Section7isnotappropriateinthis  context.WehavepreviouslyrecognizedthatwheninterpretingArticleI,Section7,wewilldepart  fromfederalprecedentonlywhen (1)adoptingfederalFourthAmendmentstandardswouldrequire  overrulingasettleddevelopmentofstateconstitutionallaw;and(2)whenlinguisticdifferences t justifydistinctinterpretationsofstateandfederalconstitutionalprovisions.Statev.Vineyard,958 ` S.W.2d730,73334(Tenn.1997)(internalquotationsomitted).Certainly,followingfederal L  precedentinthiscontextdoesnotrequireoverrulingasettleddevelopmentofstateconstitutional 8  law.Tothecontrary,refusingtofollowfederalprecedenthereamountstoanimplicitoverrulingor $ t modificationofaveryrecentstateconstitutionaldecision,namelyDowney.Moreover,thereareno  ` linguisticdifferencesjustifyingadistinctinterpretationofthestateconstitutionalprovisioninthis  L  context.Accordingly,themajoritysdecisionisanunnecessaryandunwarrantedabandonmentof  8  thetestrecentlyadoptedinDowney. $  Ѐ     Moreover,myresearchrevealsthatthetestadoptedbythemajorityiswithoutprecedential   support.IhavefoundnodecisionrequiringtheStatetoofferspecificproofthatthesafetythreat   from_unlicensed_Ԁdrivers invariablypresentsanimminentdangerofdeathorseriousbodilyinjury   tootherdriversthatisnottypicallypresentwithlicenseddriversandthatthemagnitudeofthe p problemcommandsheightenedattention. \   ThemajoritysassertionthatsuchspecificproofisrequiredbyDowneyissimplyincorrect. 4 ThisCourtdidnotrequiretheStatetointroducespecificproofontherisksposedbydrunkdrivers  p toestablishtheconstitutionalvalidityofsobrietycheckpointsinDowney.Wemerelyrecognized  \ thenationalstatisticsaboutthedangersandrisksposedbydrunkdrivers.See,Downey,945S.W.2d H at110(summarizingstatisticsquotedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinMichiganv.Sitz,496 4 U.S.at456,110S.Ct.at2488).AlsoerroneousisthemajoritysassertionthatDowneyrequires   theStatetoadvancea compellinginterestbeforeanalysiscontinuesunderthethreeprongedtest.   Whiletheadjective compellingwasusedinDowneytodescribethepublicinterestatstakein  detectinganddeterringdrunkdrivers,nowheredoesDowneysuggestthattheStateisrequiredto  advancea compellinginteresttojustifyfurtheranalysisoftheconstitutionalityofa_suspicionless_  highwaycheckpoint.Indeed,thetestadoptedinDowneyrequiresonlyaweighingof (1)the l gravityofthepublicconcernsservedbytheroadblock;(2)thedegreetowhichtheroadblock X  advancesthepublicinterests;and(3)theseverityoftheroadblocksinterferencewithanindividuals D! libertyorprivacyinterest.Downey,945S.W.2dat107.Ofcourse,the gravity!strengthor 0"  seriousness!ofthepublicconcernorStatesinterestwillaffecttheweighingprocess,butnocase, #l! certainlynotDowney,hasrequiredtheStatetoestablishacompellinginterestasathresholdmatter $X" tocontinuethethreeprongedanalysis,asthemajorityopinionappearstorequire._  #  8      _ $D # Ї  Inmyview,properapplicationofthethreeprongedbalancingtestadoptedinDowneyresults  inafindingthatlicensecheckpointsarenotperseunconstitutional.Withrespecttothefirstfactor,  thegravityofthepublicconcern,IagainnotethattheUnitedStateSupremeCourtandmanyother  statecourts,includingtheCourtofCriminalAppeals,haverecognizedthatstateshavea vital t interestinensuringhighwaysafetybyremoving_unlicensed_Ԁdriversfromtheroadways._# #  9      _Ԁ `  Automobilelicensesareissuedperiodicallytoevidencethatthedriversholdingthemare L  sufficientlyfamiliarwiththerulesoftheroadandarephysicallyqualifiedtooperateamotor 8  vehicle._Prouse_,440U.S.at658,99S.Ct.at1398.Personswhoaretooyoungtodriveposea $ t threattopublicsafety.SeeOrr,745N.E.2dat104041.Personswhohavehadtheirlicenses  ` suspendedfordrivingundertheinfluenceconvictionsortrafficoffensesoftendisregardthe  L  suspensionanddriveanyway,endangeringthepublic.Id.Inshort,theStatehasacriticalinterest  8  inprotectingitscitizensfromdriverswhoeitherarenotqualifiedtodriveorhavebeenforbidden $  todrivebecauseofarecordofdrivingoffenses.Id.at1041.     Withrespecttothesecondfactor,thedegreetowhichthecheckpointadvancesthepublic   interest,itseemsobviousthatthereisnobetterway,indeednootherway,toadvancethepublic   interestindetecting_unlicensed_Ԁdriversthanlicensecheckpoints.AstheNewHampshireSupreme p Courthasrecognized,licensecheckpointsare theonlyeffectivemeansavailabletolawenforcement \ authoritiesofenforcingthelicenseandregistrationlaws.Koppel,499A.2dat980.Moreover,the H OhioSupremeCourthasrecognized: 4 0   8(#(#[_c]ompounding_Ԁthedangertothepublicfrom_unlicensed_Ԁdriversisthefactthatmuchofthe  \ dangerishiddenfromplainview.Whilemanytypesofdangerousmotorists!drunkdrivers, H forexample!exhibiterraticdriving,the_unlicensed_Ԁdriveroftendisplaysnoobservable 4 characteristics.Policeofficersonrovingpatrolcannotpulloveravehicleforthesole   purposeofcheckingthedriverslicenseandregistration.Therefore,withoutcheckpoints,   theonlywayinwhichpolicecanidentifyan_unlicensed_Ԁdriverisbywaitingforthedriverto  commitadrivingoffense.Inatleastsomeinstances,theoffensewouldnotevenhave  occurredhadtheoffendingdriverbeendetectedearlierandbeenremovedfromtheroadways.   (#(# Orr,745N.E.2dat104041. D!   0"    Thethirdandfinalfactorforconsiderationistheseverityofthecheckpointsinterference   withanindividualslibertyorprivacyinterest.Licensecheckpointsconstituteonlyaminimal  interferencewithanindividualslibertyinterest.Thedetentionisbrief,and,ifconductedin  accordancewithappropriateadministrativeguidelines,individualssufferlittleornosubjective t anxietybecausethecheckpointwillbepublicized,signsannouncingthecheckpointwillbe ` conspicuouslyplacedonthehighway,andofficerswillimmediatelyadviseindividualsastothe L  purposeofthecheckpoint. 8    Therefore,afterweighingthesecompetinginterests,asrequiredbytheanalysisadoptedin  ` Downey,Iamoftheopinionthatlicensecheckpointsarenotunconstitutionalperse.Such  L  checkpointsmaybeadministeredinanunconstitutionalmannerwhensupervisoryapprovalofthe  8  locationandtimeofthecheckpointisnotsought,and/orthecheckpointisnotconductedin $  accordancewithadministrativeguidelineslimitingtheconductanddiscretionofofficersinthefield.     InDowney,weemphasizedtheimportanceofsupervisorycontroloversiteselectionand   operationofsobrietycheckpoints.WhileIdissentedinDowneyfromthemajoritysconclusionthat   theevidencefailedtoestablishsupervisoryandadministrativeapprovalofthesobrietycheckpoint, p afterreviewingtherecordinthiscase,Iamconvincedthattheevidencefailstoestablishsupervisory \ andadministrativeapprovalofthislicensecheckpoint.  #  10       H   LieutenantHillinitiallytestifiedthatheestablishedthisroadblockatthedirectionofhis  p supervisorspursuanttoDepartmentofSafetyGeneralOrder410,thatothershadoperatedroadblocks  \ atthislocationduringtheweekprecedingOctober11,1997,andthathethereforehadassumed H othershadtakenthenecessarystepstoensuretheroadblockcompliedwithGeneralOrder410. 4 However,counselforHicksoffereddocumentaryevidencefromtheDepartmentofSafetyshowing   thatnoroadblockshadbeenoperatedatthislocationpriortothoseoperatedbyLieutenantHill.Also   significantisLieutenantHillsuncertaintyastowhyofficersfromRedBankandtheCityof  Chattanoogaparticipatedinthecheckpointandwhosummonedthem.UnlikeDowney,whereI  viewedtheparticipationofofficersfromthreedifferentjurisdictionsasevidenceofprior  administrativeandsupervisoryapproval,LieutenantHillstestimonyinthiscaserevealsthatthe l multijurisdictionalparticipationresultedfrommerecoincidenceratherthanadvanceplanning. X    Inadditiontothelackofsupervisoryapproval,Hicksofferedprooftoshowthatthis 0"  checkpointfailedinotherwaystofollowtheguidelinesestablishedinDowney.Forexample,this #l! checkpointhadnotbeenpreviouslypublicized,nosignswereplacedontheroadindicatingthe $X" locationandimminencyofthecheckpoint,motoristswerenotadvisedofthepurposeofthe $D # roadblock,andofficerswerenotusingredbatonsorwearingorangevestsasrequiredbyGeneral %0!$ Order410.Simplystated,theevidenceinthisrecordsupportsanddoesnotpreponderateagainst &"% thetrialcourtsfindingthatthisroadblockwasadministeredinanunconstitutionalmannerunder '#& thisCourtsdecisioninDowney.Accordingly,IagreethattheCourtofCriminalAppealserredin (#' reversingthetrialcourtsdecisiongrantingthedefendantsmotiontosuppress. )$( Ї@  % Conclusion     Forthereasonshereinstated,Idissentfromtheanalysisemployedbythemajority,butI  agreewiththemajoritysconclusionthattheCourtofCriminalAppealserredinreversingthetrial  courtsjudgmentgrantingthedefendantsmotiontosuppress. t    `       `     h   ___________________________________ $     `     h   FRANKF._DROWOTA_,III,JUSTICE