 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Guye2/8/1999
The defendant was found guilty in a bench trial of driving under the influence (second offense) and driving on a revoked license. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve sixty days of an eleven month, twenty-nine day sentence for driving under the influence. The defendant was also sentenced to sixty days to be served concurrently for driving on a revoked license. The defendant now appeals and argues that the trial court erred in ruling that the roadblock set up by White House police officers was constitutional. After a review of the record and applicable law, we find no merit to the defendant's contention and thus affirm the judgment of the lower court.
On June 30, 1995, the defendant was stopped at a roadblock conducted by police officers of White House, Tennessee. When the defendant stopped, Officer Campbell approached his car. Officer Campbell testified that he smelled alcohol on the defendant's breath and asked him to pull to the side of the road. Officer Campbell then performed three field sobriety tests on the defendant, all of which indicated that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. The defendant was arrested and subsequently indicted.
The defendant contends that the roadblock at which he was stopped was unconstitutional in that it did not conform to predetermined operational guidelines and did not have the proper supervisory authority present as required by State v. Downey, 945 S.W.2d 102 (Tenn. 1997). In Downey, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a sobriety roadblock, although a seizure, can be a reasonable seizure under the Tennessee Constitution, provided it is established and operated in accordance with predetermined operationalguidelines 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.
In this case, the White House police department had procedural guidelines in place at the time of the roadblock during which the defendant was stopped. The guidelines provided that prior to setting up a roadblock, the chief of police or the next immediate supervisor would be notified of the roadblock. In addition, the procedures required that before any roadblock was set up, prior permission must be obtained from the chief of police or the next immediate supervisor. The guidelines further required that the roadblocks be conducted in accordance with constitutional mandates, that driver licenses could not be checked without probable cause to arrest or cite the driver for an offense, and that there would be no random stops.
The roadblock set up by the White House police officers on June 30, 1995, complied with these procedural guidelines. The officers notified and obtained permission for the roadblock from either Chief Mann or Sergeant Benton. Citizens' driver licenses were not checked unless the police had probable cause to arrest or issue a citation to the driver. In addition, each car that came through the roadblock was stopped so that there would be no random stops.
The defendant contends that because the procedural guidelines did not provide for roadblocks to be publicized in advance, the guidelines do not meet the constitutional requirements set out in Downey. However, the lack of publicity is only one factor to be considered when determining the reasonableness of a roadblock. See Downey, 945 S.W.2d at 111. It is not, in and of itself, determinative.
The defendant further contends that the procedures do not require prior approval of supervisory authority, but instead only require notification and, as such, the guidelines do not meet the standards set out in Downey. However, the
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|