 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Guye2/8/1999
procedural guidelines specifically state that " o police officer employed by the White House Police Department shall/will set up a roadblock or assist any other Agency without prior permission from the Chief of Police or the next supervisor that may be in charge in the absence of the Chief." This guideline requires the approval of, not just the notification to, supervisory authority. As such, this contention is without merit.
The defendant contends that because the procedural guidelines give the officer in the field the power to choose the location, the timing, and the moving of roadblocks, they are unconstitutional. However, the guidelines only give the officer in charge, not just any officer in the field, the power to choose a new location for a roadblock. In addition, the timing of the roadblock at issue was set out and approved by a supervisor before the actual roadblock. This satisfies the standard of supervisory authority set out in Downey, 945 S.W.2d at 110-11.
The defendant also contends that the roadblocks are unconstitutional because the procedural guidelines do not provide for supervisory authority to be present at the scene. However, Downey does not require that a supervisory authority be present at the scene, only that there be supervisory authority guiding certain decisions so as to limit the discretion of officers in the field. In the case at hand, Sergeant Benton, the immediate supervisor under the chief of police, was present during the roadblock. The defendant contends that Sergeant Benton does not qualify as a supervisory authority because he is charged with patrol duties in addition to supervisory duties. However, Sergeant Benton's position is as a supervisor immediately below the chief of police. As such, he is a supervisory authority and, as he was in charge of the roadblock at issue, the roadblock was sufficiently supervised so as to limit the discretion of officers in the field. Downey, 945 S.W.2d at 110-11.
In sum, the roadblock at issue was operated in accordance with established procedural guidelines, supervisory authority authorized and conducted the roadblock, there was no evidence of any arbitrary intrusion on individuals, and the discretion of officers at the scene was limited by the supervising officer. Therefore, the roadblock meets the requirements set out in Downey and is valid under the Tennessee Constitution.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
CONCUR:
GARY R. WADE, Presiding Judge
JERRY L. SMITH, Judge
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|