Opinion ID: 1060443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: proof supporting the state's interest in this case

Text: Turning to the proof in this case, we find that despite the State's argument that drivers' license roadblocks are necessary to ensure the safety of motorists on the roads, no evidence in the record establishes this fact or, even if true, establishes that this interest is sufficiently compelling to justify suspicionless stops. Precisely because a roadblock is a departure from [the] fundamental principles contained in Article I, section 7 that a seizure must be accompanied by at least some measure of individualized suspicion, Downey, 945 S.W.2d at 104, we will not presume the presence of a compelling state interest to justify further expanding the scope of permissive suspicionless seizures. As we have noted before in other cases, a warrantless seizure `is presumed unreasonable, and evidence discovered as a result thereof is subject to suppression, unless the State demonstrates that the search or seizure was conducted pursuant to one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement.' State v. Bridges, 963 S.W.2d 487, 490 (Tenn.1997); State v. Crutcher, 989 S.W.2d 295, 299-300 (Tenn.1999). Because 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.  State v. Bartram, 925 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Tenn.1996) (emphasis added and internal quotations omitted). Therefore, as required in Downey , the State must show 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. Only when this showing is made may courts find that the State has a sufficiently compelling interest to justify maintaining drivers' license roadblocks. We are not unaware of the fact that some decisions from the Court of Criminal Appeals appear to have approved of drivers' license roadblocks after finding that the State possesses significant and legitimate interests in regulating vehicles and drivers on state highways. [4] We agree that the State possesses valid and important interests in this respect, but because the State has the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the seizure, one may not merely presume that these interests are sufficiently compelling to justify abrogating constitutional guarantees. Only when the State makes the required showing, as it has previously done with sobriety checkpoints, may courts accept the presence of the compelling interest and proceed to further analyze the roadblock under this decision and Downey . Using a rationale similar to that sometimes adopted by the intermediate court, the concurring-dissenting opinion in this case opines that the State possesses a vital interest in maintaining drivers' license roadblocks sufficient to permit suspicionless stops. More specifically, the concurring-dissenting opinion presumes that such roadblocks are urgently needed because (1) persons too young to drive pose a threat to public safety, and (2) persons who have had their licenses suspended for DUI convictions or traffic offenses often disregard that suspension, thereby endangering public safety on the roads. We do not disagree that such concerns may be present, and if these concerns demonstrate a real need to curb a substantial and imminent threat to the safety of motorists on public roads, which distinctly results from the conduct of these unlicensed drivers, then the first prong of the Downey test will have been satisfied. Indeed, it is for these reasons, and perhaps some others, that we have clarified the State's burden of proving the presence of these concerns in future cases. To be sure, however, the record in this case contains absolutely no proof of the urgent necessities identified by the concurring-dissenting opinion, and mere suspicions and conjectures of the possibilities of such dangers are never adequate to justify abrogation of constitutional liberties. History has demonstrated that the infinite faculties of mankind are such that one may devise any supposed danger or peril to justify further erosion of constitutionally protected liberties. If these factually unsupported suppositions could justify further abrogation of the warrant requirement of Article I, section 7, then every protection now guaranteed by this important provision would be subject to the irrational assault of pretended evils certain to follow. Merely declaring that the interest exists in theory is not the same as demonstrating that the need exists in fact. Furthermore, by alleviating the State's burden of production regarding its compelling interest, the concurring-dissenting opinion essentially places the burden on the defendant to retain his or her constitutional protections under Article I, section 7 by disputing the State's presumed interest. This Court has always required the State to bring forth evidence to demonstrate the propriety of a warrantless search. By presuming the presence of a sufficiently compelling interest without proof in the record of any real dangers involved, the concurring-dissenting opinion takes a perilous step in a path that shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to show the lack of a sufficiently compelling interest justifying a warrantless seizure. If other courts have taken similar paths as the concurring-dissenting opinion has attested, Article I, section 7 demands that we take the road less traveled. Finally, the concurring-dissenting opinion expresses the concern that the requirements for establishing the presence of a sufficiently compelling state interest are too burdensome. These requirements are precisely those demanded by Downey itself, and the extent of the burden is neither more nor less than was required by that case. Indeed, while the burden to be carried by the State may be heavy, one may legitimately question what purpose is served by abrogating Downey when the label of the roadblock is changed. Just as the Court looked to proof of a sufficiently compelling interest in Downey to justify sobriety checkpoints, we must also demand similar proof to justify drivers' license checkpoints. However, while we will not presume that proof exists supporting the presence of a sufficiently compelling state interest, we are also unwilling to adopt the views of Chief Justice Anderson and hold that such evidence cannot exist either. The concurring opinion authored by the Chief Justice correctly asserts that the possession of a drivers' license does not necessarily assure the safety and fitness of any motorist. However, the concurring opinion then asserts that no such proof could ever exist, 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 stops of all drivers at a checkpoint. (emphasis in original). We are reluctant to hold today, as would the concurring opinion, that the lack of proof in this record conclusively demonstrates that the State has no sufficiently compelling interest in establishing a drivers' license roadblock. Rather, the lack of evidence in this record stems more from the fact that the State has not had a meaningful opportunity to develop the record in this regard. Hicks did not specifically assert the lack of a sufficiently compelling state interest in support of his original motion to suppress, and the trial judge apparently did not consider this issue in granting the defendant's motion. Indeed, this issue was not squarely presented in any court until Hicks raised it for the first time as appellee in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Given the procedural history of this case, we disagree that the State had a meaningful opportunity to introduce proof of its interest in maintaining drivers' license roadblocks. Importantly, both this Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals possess appellate jurisdiction only, and our ability to receive and hear evidence not presented in the trial court is severely restricted. See Duncan v. Duncan, 672 S.W.2d 765, 768 (Tenn.1984); see also Tenn. R.App. P. 14. As such, we disagree that a party is necessarily afforded a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and be heard merely because an issue has been raised and determined in the appellate courts. Because our concern should always be to ensure that litigants are fully and fairly heard before their interests are adjudicated, prudence dictates that the State be given a meaningful opportunity to present evidence of its claims before its interests are conclusively determined. Had the motion to suppress squarely put the State on notice of its need to present evidence to show a sufficiently compelling interest to justify stopping motorists lawfully traveling along the highways of this state, and had the State under those circumstances failed to present such evidence, then we would not hesitate to agree with the conclusion reached by the Chief Justice. However, because our review of the record indicates that the issue was not pleaded or tried during the hearing on the motion to suppress, the prudent and reasonable path is for this Court to rule upon the record as developed in this case and not to foreclose the possibility that the State can establish a sufficiently compelling interest in future cases. In demonstrating this sufficiently compelling state interest in these future cases, however, we emphasize that the State may not merely rely upon its general interest in maintaining highway safety to justify suspicionless seizures of its citizens, no matter how minimal one may be able to characterize the intrusion. To the extent that the State's justification for maintaining a roadblock does not reflect a real, compelling interest in curbing a substantial and imminent threat to the safety of motorists on public roads, one may be unable to distinguish this supposed interest in safety from a more general interest in ordinary crime control. However, as the United States Supreme Court has made clear, and as we agree has long been the law in Tennessee, in no case may the State establish a roadblock merely to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. Edmond, 531 U.S. at 41, 121 S.Ct. 447. Instead, [w]hen law enforcement authorities pursue primarily general crime control purposes at checkpoints ..., stops can only be justified by some quantum of individualized suspicion. Id. at 47, 121 S.Ct. 447. Therefore, unlike many of our sister states, this Court will not presume the existence of a compelling interest until the State introduces some proof of the need to curb a substantial and imminent threat to the safety of motorists on public roads distinctly resulting from the conduct of unlicensed drivers. [5] Moreover, we also emphasize that the State may not merely rely upon its general interest in maintaining the integrity of its drivers' licensing scheme to justify future roadblocks. We see no indication from the record that the State's interest in enforcing a drivers' license law is any greater than its interest in enforcing any other law, and indeed, the State's interest in enforcing other criminal laws is at least as great as it is in enforcing laws regulating drivers' licenses. If the State may not legitimately establish roadblocks to detect other violations, it follows that the State may not do so merely to enforce drivers' license laws. Therefore, to justify suspicionless stops in this context, the State must necessarily rely upon the need to curb a substantial and imminent threat to the safety of motorists on public roads distinctly resulting from the conduct of unlicensed drivers. Accordingly, because the record has not been sufficiently developed in this case for this Court to make a definitive determination as to the compelling nature of the State interest involved, we cannot find that the State has demonstrated a sufficiently grave public concern so as to warrant further expansion of the roadblock exception under the Article I, section 7. While we do not foreclose the possibility that the State could assert a compelling interest in future cases concerning the need to establish drivers' license roadblocks, the absence of any such evidence in this case must weigh very heavily against, if not be fatal to, finding the roadblock at issue here constitutionally reasonable. B. THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE PUBLIC CONCERN IS FURTHERED BY THE SEIZURE In addition to requiring a sufficiently compelling state interest, our decision in Downey also required an examination of the degree to which the presence of the roadblock advances that compelling state interest. In Prouse , the United States Supreme Court stated that any type of suspicionless seizure must promote the asserted state interest in a sufficiently productive fashion before it could qualify as a reasonable law enforcement practice. 440 U.S. at 660, 99 S.Ct. 1391. We recognized this principle in Downey , although we noted that courts should generally refrain from analyzing whether other constitutionally reasonable measures are more effective in accomplishing the state's interest. 945 S.W.2d at 108-09. Accordingly, this second prong of the Downey test may be satisfied when one can fairly say that roadblocks contribute in a meaningful way to achieving the sufficiently compelling state interest. The State did not introduce any evidence at the suppression hearing to establish the presence of this factor. From our own review of the record, we note that the roadblock at issue here, which was conducted over a two-night period, did not uncover a single driver who was operating a vehicle without a valid license. Although the failure to detect any unlicensed drivers could be theoretically attributable to the deterrence provided by the roadblock, we seriously doubt that such was the case here because no advanced publicity of the roadblock was given to the public at large. As we recognized in Downey , the need to deter certain types of conduct can justify a roadblock even when the evidence otherwise suggests that the particular roadblock is ineffective in detecting the object of its operation. However, before motorists can be reasonably deterred by roadblocks, they must first be aware that they are likely to encounter such roadblocks, and advanced publicity is one key to ensuring this awareness. Cf. State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tenn.2000) (discussing publicity and public knowledge as a key factor in deterrence philosophy). [6] Therefore, so long as the State chooses to rely on deterrence as a rationale supporting any roadblock, we reiterate that advance publicity of the roadblock may be essential, and in those cases where this factor is absent, the State's ability to rely upon deterrence to justify the stops is correspondingly diminished. We also find no evidence in the record from which one could infer that the complete ineffectiveness of this roadblock in detecting unlicensed drivers was somewhat of an anomaly. For example, no proof exists that the time and site of this roadblock were chosen because of their effectiveness in detecting and deterring unlicensed drivers. The State introduced no proof that unlicensed drivers are particularly likely to be driving during the times that these roadblocks were in operation, i.e., between 12:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., and we doubt that this fact is even supported by anecdotal evidence in a manner similar to that supporting drunk drivers. Nor did the State introduce evidence that the site of the roadblock was chosen because of the particularly high volume of traffic or numerous incidents of unlicensed drivers. Cf. Ingersoll v. Palmer, 43 Cal.3d 1321, 241 Cal.Rptr. 42, 743 P.2d 1299, 1315 (1987). To be clear, these factors are not required to demonstrate that the checkpoint contributes in a meaningful way to achieving the compelling state interest. Nevertheless, to the extent that these factors are considered by law enforcement officers or are otherwise apparent on the face of the record, the questionable effectiveness of an individual roadblock may be mitigated. [7] We cannot find a roadblock to be constitutionally reasonable unless the State first demonstrates some meaningful link between its establishment and the achievement of its compelling interest. Because the record in this case contains no such evidence, we cannot fairly conclude that the roadblock in this case meaningfully contributed to achieving the state's interest in detecting and deterring unlicensed drivers. Taking issue with this conclusion, the concurring-dissenting opinion asserts that the second prong of the Downey test is met in this case because there is no better way of detecting unlicensed drivers than through roadblocks. Assuming this fact to be true, we note that the lack of other effective alternatives does not alone bestow the blessing of constitutional reasonableness upon an otherwise totally ineffective roadblock. Whatever else may be said of the presence of viable alternatives, it is clear that the roadblock must promote the asserted state interest in a sufficiently productive fashion before it can qualify as a reasonable law enforcement practice. Cf. Prouse, 440 U.S. at 660, 99 S.Ct. 1391. [8] Therefore, the absence of this proof must also weigh heavily against finding that the roadblock here was constitutionally reasonable. C. INTRUSIVENESS OF THE ROADBLOCK AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE Regarding the severity of the interference with personal liberty and privacy, we have held that a roadblock cannot be deemed constitutionally reasonable unless it is established and operated in accordance with predetermined operational guidelines and supervisory authority that minimize the risk of arbitrary intrusion on individuals and limit the discretion of law enforcement officers at the scene. Downey, 945 S.W.2d at 104. To this end, our decision in Downey enumerated several characteristics of a roadblock that minimize the risk of arbitrary intrusion under Article I, section 7, including (1) stopping all cars traveling in both directions, unless congested traffic requires permitting motorists to pass through; (2) taking adequate safety precautions, such as warning approaching motorists of the roadblock and stopping cars only in a safe and visible area; (3) conducting the roadblock with uniformed officers and marked patrol cars with flashing emergency lights; and (4) providing advanced publicity of the roadblock to the public at large, separate from, and in addition to, any notice warnings given to approaching motorists. Although the absence of any one of these factors does not necessarily invalidate a roadblock, they each weigh heavily in determining the overall reasonableness of the checkpoint. Id. at 110-12 passim. However, the most important attribute of a reasonable roadblock is the presence of genuine limitations upon the discretion of the officers in the field. Two facts are critical to finding that the officers' discretion on the scene was properly limited: (1) the decision to set up the roadblock in the first instance cannot have been made by the officer or officers actually establishing the checkpoint, and (2) the officers on the scene cannot decide for themselves the procedures to be used in operating the roadblock. In all cases, therefore, the State must show that some authority superior to the officers in the field decided to establish the roadblock, particularly as to its time and location, and that the officers adhered to neutral standards previously fixed by administrative decision or regulation. See id. passim. To be clear, these factors are so essential to a reasonable roadblock that the absence of either of them will necessarily result in the invalidation of the stops.