State v. Downey
1997 Tenn. LEXIS 257, 74 A.L.R. 5th 729, 945 S.W.2d 102 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sobriety roadblock constitutes a seizure under Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution and is only reasonable if it is established and operated in accordance with a predetermined plan and supervisory authority that minimizes officer discretion and the intrusion on motorists.
Facts:
- On August 8, 1992, at approximately 12:00 a.m., Lt. Ronnie Hill of the Tennessee Highway Patrol established a roadblock on Hixson Pike in Hamilton County.
- Lt. Hill was assisted by members of the Chattanooga and Hamilton County DUI task forces.
- The decision to set up the roadblock, as well as its specific time and location, were made by Lt. Hill without obtaining approval from any superior officer.
- There was no advance public announcement regarding the existence, time, or location of the roadblock.
- All motorists traveling in either direction were stopped unless traffic became congested.
- Sarah Hutton Downey approached the roadblock and was stopped by an officer.
- Prior to the stop, Downey's driving and conduct were unremarkable and free from any suspicion of wrongdoing.
- After stopping Downey, an officer detected the odor of alcohol, which led to sobriety testing and her arrest for driving under the influence.
Procedural Posture:
- Sarah Hutton Downey was charged with driving under the influence.
- In the trial court, Downey filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the stop, arguing the roadblock was an unconstitutional seizure.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- Downey appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the roadblock was an unreasonable seizure because policy decisions were left to the unrestrained discretion of officers in the field.
- The State of Tennessee was granted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a sobriety roadblock, conducted without individualized suspicion, constitute an unreasonable seizure in violation of Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution when the decision to establish the roadblock, its location, and its procedures are determined by an officer in the field without prior administrative approval?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, J.
Yes, a sobriety roadblock constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Tennessee Constitution when its implementation is left to the unfettered discretion of officers in the field. Although sobriety roadblocks are not per se unconstitutional, they must be established and operated pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. The court adopted the three-part balancing test from federal jurisprudence, weighing the gravity of the public concern, the degree to which the seizure advances that interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty. In this case, the roadblock was constitutionally deficient because the decision to hold it, its location, and its operational procedures were matters determined solely by Lt. Hill, an officer in the field, without any prior administrative or supervisory approval. This lack of oversight creates a risk of arbitrary invasions of privacy that Article I, Section 7 is designed to prevent.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Drowota, J.
No, the roadblock in this case did not constitute an unreasonable seizure and was constitutionally valid. While agreeing with the majority's adoption of the legal balancing test, the dissent disagrees with its application to the facts. The dissent argues that the participation of four different law enforcement agencies strongly implies the existence of advance planning and administrative oversight, contrary to the majority's finding. Furthermore, the roadblock was conducted in a safe manner that limited the discretion of individual officers on the scene as to which cars to stop. Therefore, because the roadblock was conducted pursuant to an objective plan that minimized arbitrary intrusions, it complied with constitutional standards.
Analysis:
This case establishes for the first time in Tennessee the constitutional requirements for conducting sobriety roadblocks. By adopting the federal balancing test from Michigan v. Sitz but heavily emphasizing the need for prior supervisory approval and a predetermined plan, the court sets a higher procedural bar under the state constitution. The decision significantly curtails the ability of law enforcement to spontaneously set up checkpoints, requiring administrative oversight to prevent arbitrary exercises of police power. Future legal challenges to roadblocks in Tennessee will now focus not only on how the stop was conducted, but on the administrative process and planning that preceded it.
