Opinion ID: 1868000
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nature of the State's Interest

Text: The first prong of the test examines the gravity of the public concerns served by the checkpoint. In Downey , we recognized the State's compelling interest in detecting and deterring inebriated drivers on the basis of overwhelming statistics indicating that more deaths and injuries have resulted from such motor vehicle accidents on our nation's highways than from all the wars this country has fought. 945 S.W.2d at 110 (citing Sitz, 496 U.S. at 456, 110 S.Ct. 2481 (Blackmun, J., concurring)). Additionally, we noted the carnage and tragedy ... recorded daily in our newspapers and on our television screens, and the repeated efforts of our legislature to strengthen our laws against driving under the influence. Id. at 104. In the subsequent Hicks case, the State argued that the roadblock had been established to ensure highway safety by detecting and deterring unlicensed drivers. Id. at 525. Unlike the situation with drunk drivers, however, we did not have in Hicks the benefit of overwhelming statistics, daily media reports, and repeated legislative action establishing the connection between unlicensed motorists and highway safety. Nor did the record contain any evidence proving that drivers not possessing a license were a threat to highway safety. Id. at 527. Two members of this Court opined in Hicks that a driver's license roadblock would withstand scrutiny under the first prong of the Downey test only if the State showed that drivers not possessing a license are unable to safely operate motor vehicles on the roads and highways of this state; that an unlicensed driver invariably presents an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to other drivers that is not typically present with licensed drivers; and that the safety threat from unlicensed drivers is of such a magnitude that the problem, coupled with its risk of harm, commands heightened attention. Id. at 527. In a concurring opinion, two other members of this Court concluded that the roadblock was unconstitutional per se because there is no basis upon which to reasonably conclude that a motorist who is not in possession of a valid drivers' license necessarily poses an immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury great enough to warrant the suspicionless stop of all drivers at a checkpoint. Id. at 540 (Anderson, C.J., concurring). Under both analyses, the Hicks roadblock failed to satisfy the first prong of the Downey test. Id. at 538-39, 541. Clearly, the State faces a significant challenge in demonstrating that its reason(s) for establishing a checkpoint are sufficiently compelling so as to justify suspicionless stops of our citizens. Id. at 525. In the instant case, the entry identification checkpoint was established, according to the State, to ensure residential safety by detecting and deterring unauthorized visitors. Although the trial court assumed arguendo the State's interest to be compelling, this Court will not presume the presence of a compelling state interest to justify further expanding the scope of permissive suspicionless seizures. Id. at 527. Rather, [b]ecause the exceptions to the warrant requirement `are jealously and carefully drawn,' the State must show that `the exigencies of the situation made the search [or seizure] imperative. ' Id. (quoting State v. Bartram, 925 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Tenn.1996)) (initial emphasis added). As in Hicks , we have in this case no overwhelming statistics, daily media reports, or repeated legislative actions before us which establish a causal connection between unauthorized visitors to the Poss Homes community and risk or harm to its residents. Moreover, the State has offered us no proof that unauthorized visitors to Poss Homes necessarily threaten its residents' safety. As in Hicks , then, the State has failed in this case to demonstrate that its interest in establishing the instant checkpoint was sufficiently compelling to pass muster under the Tennessee Constitution. The instant checkpoint therefore necessarily fail[s] constitutional examination under article I, section 7. Id.