Opinion ID: 1060443
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: constitutionality of this roadblock under article i, section 7 of the tennessee constitution

Text: Our decision in State v. Downey did not address the constitutional propriety of roadblocks for purposes other than to detect motorists driving under the influence of alcohol. Recognizing this fact, the appellant has urged this Court to find that roadblocks established for the sole purpose of checking drivers' licenses and vehicle registration are unconstitutional per se under the federal and state constitutions. Although the United States Supreme Court has never expressly held that drivers' license roadblocks are constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment, it has suggested that such may be the case upon a proper showing. For example, in Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979), the United States Supreme Court held that motorists could not be randomly stopped by officers checking for drivers' licenses or vehicle registration, but it noted that the questioning of all motorists at a roadblock could be one possible alternative. The Court has also acknowledged this view, albeit in dicta, in at least two cases since Prouse . See City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 39-40, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000); Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 739, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (plurality opinion). Nevertheless, the issue of whether a drivers' license roadblock is constitutionally permissible under the Tennessee Constitution has not been decided by this Court. We acknowledged in Downey that although federal cases interpreting the Fourth Amendment are particularly persuasive authority for construing Article I, section 7, the Tennessee Constitution can provide greater protection for its citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. See 945 S.W.2d at 106. Accordingly, in analyzing the constitutionality of roadblocks under Article I, section 7, we adopted the test similar to that established in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979), which generally analyzes the reasonableness of seizures that are less intrusive than full arrest. See id. at 110. As applied by Downey to roadblocks, this test examines three factors: (1) the gravity of the public concerns served by the roadblock; (2) the degree to which the roadblock advances the public interest; and (3) the severity of the roadblock's interference with an individual's liberty or privacy. See id. at 107-08; cf. Brown, 443 U.S. at 50-51, 99 S.Ct. 2637; Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990). We reaffirm that the test adopted in Downey is to be applied in all cases involving constitutional challenges to roadblocks or checkpoints under the Tennessee Constitution. Although the Court of Criminal Appeals analyzed the issues in this case as constituting per se and as applied challenges, Downey made no such constitutional distinctions. It may be true that when the State cannot identify a sufficiently grave public concern justifying a roadblock, the roadblock could be characterized as being unconstitutional per se. It may also be true that when a roadblock exhibits an unreasonable level of intrusion on liberty or privacy, it may be characterized as being unconstitutional as applied. However, these characterizations encourage analysis outside of the test adopted in Downey , and this analysis creates a heightened danger that constitutional standards will not be uniformly and consistently applied. Accordingly, we decline to address the arguments in terms of unconstitutionality per se and as applied and instead continue to determine the reasonableness of this roadblock by using the three-pronged test as set forth in Downey .
With respect to the gravity of the public concerns served by drivers' license roadblocks, we must first identify the state interest in maintaining such roadblocks and then determine whether this interest is sufficiently compelling to abrogate constitutional protections against suspicionless stops. The presence of a sufficiently compelling state interest justifying a warrantless seizure at a checkpoint is an important, if not essential, factor going to the overall constitutional reasonableness of any such stop. The need and importance of this factor were acknowledged in Downey , which devoted considerable attention to examining whether the State possessed a sufficiently compelling interest in maintaining sobriety checkpoints. Moreover, persuasive authority for initially requiring the presence of a sufficiently compelling state interest can be found in other cases decided since Downey 's release, perhaps most notably the recent decision from the United States Supreme Court in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond . In that case, the Court held a roadblock unconstitutional solely because its primary purpose contravene[d] the Fourth Amendment. See 531 U.S. at 42, 121 S.Ct. 447. Therefore, we believe that critical examination of the nature and presence of the state interest involved is an important and essential factor in ascertaining the reasonableness of any roadblock. As such, we first undertake a careful study of the State's asserted interest in this case and of the proof in the record to support the presence of this interest.