Charges of Terrorism in Tennessee Often Fall Apart

A report out of The Tennessean has shown that the state is falling down when it comes to terrorism prosecutions, a charge that is apparently difficult to have stick. The paper found that only nine people in the state have been arrested on terrorism charges since the state’s laws went into effect in 2002. All but one of the defendants either had their charges dismissed or were convicted on lesser charges.

The law in Tennessee makes it a felony to commit any crime intended to “intimidate or coerce” civilians or the government or to disrupt government. The offense is punishable by up to 25 years in prison for a first offense.

The exact reason for why terrorism charges are so hard to make stick is difficult to pin down. It could be many things; mental illness on the part of the defendant will often excuse or reduce the charges. Prosecutors often end up taking into consideration the intent of the defendant making the threats as the words may have been said as a result of extreme emotional distress on their parts and not meant to actually cause harm.

Davidson County recently saw their first such terrorism–related arrest when Amal Abdullahi told a CEVA Logistics co-worker on September 1 that she was ready to die for Allah and that America was full of nonbelievers who should die. Police said she also told the co-worker that nobody pays any attention to her and “she should pick up a gun and shoot all these people.”

The incident was not reported to police until September 6, and CEVA could not be reached for comment. Abdullahi is currently free on $50,000 bond after family was able to post her bail. She is expected to be in court again on October 10 and has retained an attorney

Another terrorism-related arrest that fizzled happened in 2008, when a Middle Tennessee State University student was arrested after, police said, he set fire to his dorm and threatened large-scale devastation on the campus. Rather than admit to terrorism, he pleaded guilty to charges of setting fire to personal property and filing a false report.

On Halloween 2010, a local guy in Chattanooga was arrested on a terrorism charge after he called 911 to say there was an active shooter and several people had been wounded in the fictitious attack. Again, prosecutors dropped the terrorism charge and the man eventually pled guilty to a charge of making a false report.

Source: “TN terrorism charges are rarely upheld,” by Brian Haas, published at WBIR.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on DUI Forced Blood Draws
Sixth Circuit Rules that Park Ranger Was Right to Detain Man Carrying AK-47

New Tennessee Law Prevents Discussion of “Gateway Sexual Activity”

by Lee Davis

A law signed by Governor Bill Haslam has introduced a new legal term: gateway sexual activity. The bill, HB 3621/SB 3310, bans teaching Tennessee students about “gateway sexual activity.” One of the problems with the bill is that it does not clearly define what exactly that activity is. Critics have complained that a broad reading of the law could mean that behavior such as kissing or holding hands may qualify. Thus, those opposed to the new bill have labeled it the “no holding hands bill.”

According to the bill, a gateway sexual activity means “sexual contact encouraging an individual to engage in a non-abstinent behavior.” Those found to have encouraged, advocated, urged or condoned such actions will be found in violation of Tennessee law.

The law was prompted by a classroom demonstration of a sex toy. Former State Sen.,David Fowler, president of the Family Action Council, helped draft the bill and said that “gateway sexual activity” means “sexual contact” such as any intentional touching of areas such as the “groin, inner thigh, buttock or breast of a human being.”

Under the new law, the curriculum of Tennessee schools is required to “exclusively and emphatically promote sexual risk avoidance through abstinence, regardless of a student's current or prior sexual experience.” Should outside instructors or organizations teach students about gateway sexual activity in class, they could be fined up to $500

The law says that abstinence-based programs will be implemented in counties where the pregnancy rate exceeds 19.5 pregnancies per 1,000 females between ages 11 and 18, which essentially means every county in the state. The Associated Press reported that in 2009 in Tennessee, there were 29.6 pregnancies per 1,000 girls, down from a high of 48.2 in 1998.

Opponents have argued that the bill will do a disservice to Tennessee young people by making them less informed about ways to prevent disease and avoid pregnancies. They say that ignorance, and a lack of information, is never the way to improve a situation. Barry Chase, president of Planned Parenthood Greater Memphis Region, told the AP that the bill will prevent educators in Tennessee “from providing the comprehensive education that students want and need and their parents expect.”

The law took effect July 1, 2012.

Read: “Tennessee Passes Law Against ‘Gateway Sexual Activity’, Critics Suspect Holding Hands Qualifies As Sex,” by Laura Matthews, published at IBTimes.com.

New Laws Broaden Scope of Sex Offender Registry

 By Stevie Phillips

The Tennessee General Assembly passed four new laws that broaden the scope of the sex offender registry.  A brief explanation of each new law follows: 

House Bill 2853

The main difference between registering as a standard sex offender and registering as a violent sex offender is that a standard sex offender may petition to be removed from the registry ten (10) years after completion of probation, parole, or incarceration.  The violent sex offender registry, on the other hand, is for life. 

After passage of House Bill 2853, a person convicted of first-offense promotion of prostitution must register as a standard sex offender.  It’s only upon conviction of a subsequent offense that he or she must register as a violent sex offender.

House Bill 2939

After the passage of House Bill 2939, a person convicted of trafficking a person for a commercial sex act must register as a sex offender. 

This requirement is only a small part of this new law, however.  The main purpose of House Bill 2939 is to revise the definition of “trafficking a person for a commercial sex act.”  Specifically, a sex act can now be commercial if secured by causing or threatening physical harm, restraint, abuse of law or legal process, destruction of a passport or immigration/government document, blackmail, or facilitating access to a controlled substance.  

House Bill 3283

Previously, a judge could only require a person convicted of statutory rape to register as a sex offender if that person had a prior conviction for mitigated statutory rape, statutory rape, or aggravated statutory rape. 

After the passage of House Bill 3283, a judge may require a person convicted of statutory rape for the first time to register as a sex offender.  In determining whether to impose this requirement, the trial court must consider the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense, including the offense for which the person was actually charged and whether the conviction is the result of a plea agreement.

House Bill 3398

House Bill 3398 applies to registered sex offenders whose victims were minors and who are later convicted of violating the residential and work restrictions in the TN Sexual Offender and Violent Sexual Offender Registration, Verification and Tracking Act of 2004. 

Under this new law, which amends section 39-13-530(a), any conveyance or personal property (not real property) is subject to judicial forfeiture if used during the commission of such a violation.  The proceeds of the judicial forfeiture will be allotted to the child abuse fund.  Under current law, 50% of that money funds child advocacy centers, 25% funds court appointed special advocates, and 25% funds child abuse prevention.

New Tax for Diversion Applicants is a Bad Idea

Rep. Eric Watson, Photo by Associated Press

by Lee Davis


The Tennessee House passed a new tax this week that will require people to pay to have their name cleared upon the completion of diversion. HB 2774 (here), sponsored by Rep. Eric Watson, Cleveland, introduces the new tax. The new part is a $100.00 tax that must be paid to the court when requesting diversion. Also added is an increase in taxes that will escalate the amount required to clear one's name to $350.00. Thus, the total cost to have a record expunged after diversion will be $550.00 when the local fee for Hamilton County is added. The house bill has been sent to the TN Senate for passage. If signed by Gov. Haslam, the law will go into effect July 1st. This is a bad idea.Who will this bill affect, and what is diversion? Let's start with diversion; there are two types: judicial diversion and pretrial diversion.

Judicial diversion is a way many minor cases are settled for first time offenders.  Let's say you have a daughter who is home from college and gets arrested for using her sister's ID to get into a club or who actually drinks in the club.  The offending person is potentially guilty of underage drinking and using a false ID, both crimes.  If the person accepts responsibility and has no criminal record, the court may defer court proceedings without entering a judgment of guilty--with the consent of the prosecutor.  Under this example, the student will now pay $100 to be considered for diversion and $350 more (plus $100 local fee) to have their record expunged after completing diversion.  Previously, the person paid $150.

Pretrial diversion is for those with the least culpability who find themselves ensnared in the legal system. Let's say a person writes a check for a service and then disputes the service, placing a stop-payment order on the check.  The merchant then swears out a criminal warrant for theft of services.  Under this scenario each person believes the other is the culprit. The check writer may find herself in court, charged with a crime.  If the district attorney believes the explanation, he may offer the person pretrial diversion with an understanding that the case will be dismissed and expunged.  Most people, completely innocent people, will accept this disposition rather than endure additional trips to the courthouse to prove their innocence. Under the new law, this person will also be forced to pay $550 to have her good name cleared for actions that she believed were completely honest and ethical.

There is good reason to have records expunged.  Background checks are routine for employers, higher education and many other reasons.  A minor charge--even when explained--often will result in a job or school denial when found on a background check. Diversion is granted one time and only for good cause. The result is that many ordinary people may have their records expunged and reputation restored upon successful completion of diversion.  A modest fee for the service has always been the rule.  This week's action by Rep. Watson and the house will place a new heavy financial burden on many. This new tax will effect every citizen who seeks diversion. Without paying the new application tax, there will be no consideration of an application for diversion.  Without payment of the increased tax, no record will be expunged.  Many across the state who cannot afford these new and increased taxes will be harmed.

Governor Haslam Encourages a $6 Million Crime Prevention Plan for Tennessee

The Tennessean reported Friday that Governor Haslam has devised a plan to help prevent crime and reduce the amount of violent crimes in the state of Tennessee. The estimated total cost of the plan is around $6 Million.

Violent crime has become a huge concern for the citizens of Tennessee, most recently in Chattanooga where there has been a definite increase in shootings and other violent crime. Many blame gang activity and various drug activity. As we have witnessed in recent months, the combination of both can prove particularly dangerous.

The plan focuses on three areas: decreasing violent crime, cutting the rate at which criminals commit new crimes, and reducing prescription and methamphetamine abuse.

Here is a rundown of the different aspects of the proposed plan:

• Domestic Violence: One of the aspects of the plan would impose mandatory minimum sentences for domestic violence offenses. A second domestic violence offense would receive a mandatory minimum of 45 days in prison; a third offense would receive a mandatory minimum of 120 days in prison. The proposed legislation dealing with domestic violence stems from a study conducted in October that ranked Tennessee the 5th in the nation in murders of women by men.

• Gang-Related crimes: The plan includes increased penalties for felons involved in gang-related crime, and reducing the rate at which a criminal commits a new crime. Specifically, legislation would target groups of three or more people who commit violent crimes. These groups would receive a harsher penalty for gang-related crime. Further, specific crimes frequently associated with gang activity will receive an increased penalty. These include: aggravated assaults and robberies and aggravated burglaries.

• Pill abuse: The proposed measures involving drug-related crimes include a system for cleaning noxious meth labs, improving the state database that tracks the sale of pseudoephedrine, better training state troopers on drug interdiction, and shift non-violent drug offenders from prison to local drug court programs.

Haslam's plan has its fair share of critics. Some of those against the legislation include defense attorneys who are wary of mandatory minimum sentencing. This is because specific circumstances of a case cannot be taken into account when there is a mandatory minimum sentence in place for a certain crime. Funding is also a big issue. While moving non-violent drug offenders to drug court programs is a great suggestion, many wonder where the funding for that type of movement will originate. Many are worried that the increased penalties for domestic violence offenders will begin to overcrowd the prisons. Prison administrators state the prisons are already filled to capacity with some exceeding capacity.

Even given the criticism, there seems to be overall support for Haslam's plan, particularly for the provisions involving drug-related crimes.

Many of these proposed laws are likely to come up in the upcoming session of the Tennessee Legislature. If passed, they will take effect later this year.

Tennessee's Voter ID Law Could Face Potential Legal Action

The Times Free Press reported recently that the controversial Voter ID law enacted by Governor Bill Haslam may face a challenge in court. While those who disagree with the law are not saying much, it has been confirmed that a "law suit is being contemplated." Attorney Gerard Stranch of Nashville and general counsel for the Tennessee Democratic Party confirmed the potential for a law suit, but said that he hoped the legislature would change the law this month.

The controversial law, which went into effect on January 1, requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Those supporting the law state it is necessary for preventing voter fraud. Interestingly enough, those in opposition to the law can only recognize one documented occurrence of voter fraud in the state of Tennessee. What many believe is the real reason for the law is an alleged national GOP effort to "disenfranchise millions of minority, elderly, young, and low-income voters across the U.S. before the upcoming 2012 election." Often times, these laws have a disparate impact on the socio-economic groups mentioned above who are more likely to lack the resources necessary to obtain a government-issued photo ID whether it be a lack of funds or a lack of proper documentation.

Many believe the recent rejection by the U.S. Department of Justice of a South Carolina law similar to Tennessee's will provoke the Tennessee Legislature to re-evaluate the law and eventually overturn it. The basis for this rejection is that the South Carolina law discriminated against minorities. According to proponents of the Tennessee law, South Carolina is under a different scrutiny than Tennessee when it comes to enacting Election laws. While South Carolina must seek approval by the U.S. Department of Justice before enacting any Election laws, Tennessee is not required to seek such approval. Because of this, supporters of the law believe legal action would be pointless.

Supporters of the law point to many efforts the Tennessee government has made to make this requirement easier on its citizens. For instance, driver services centers will be open the first Saturday of every month to help those in need of an ID obtain one. An ID issued for non driving purposes is also available for no charge unlike a driver's license. These efforts, supporters claim, prove that this law was not enacted with the purpose of creating a disparate impact on minorities and the elderly.

The citizens of the State of Tennessee will most likely have to wait this one out to see what happens. From the looks of it, either the TN Legislature will revisit the law later this month or those against the law will likely bring legal action. We'll keep you updated on its progress throughout the coming months.

Judge from Court of Criminal Appeals Points Out a Discrepancy in Various Statutes in the TN Criminal Code

JOSEPH M. TIPTON

In a concurring opinion to the Court of Criminal Appeals decision in  State v. Deandre Blake, Judge Joseph Tipton agreed with the Court's opinion, but elected to point out a possible discrepancy in various statutes in the criminal code. We think that these are important issues and ones likely to be revisited by the Court.

This case involved convictions by Blake for two counts of first degree murder committed in the perpetration of child abuse and child neglect. Blake argued on appeal that the evidence was not sufficient to uphold the convictions. The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to uphold both convictions.

Justice Tipton agreed but questioned the language of the provisions of the TN Criminal Code including: first degree murder, aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect. He emphasized the history of the Tennessee Legislature with regards to amendments to the felony murder statute. Specifically, in 1998, the legislature added aggravated child neglect to the list of predicate felonies in the felony murder statute. During that same year, the legislature amended the child abuse statute to include as a felony, "Aggravated Child Neglect." The intent of the legislature at this point was to "distinguish criminal conduct that caused injury to a child from criminal conduct that adversely affected a child's health and welfare by creating two different offenses, child abuse and child neglect."

However, in 2005, Justice Tipton explains, the legislature enacted a statute that penalized 1) treating a child in a way as to inflict injury or 2) abusing or neglecting a child so as to adversely affect the child's health and welfare." According to Tipton,

"to the present date, the felony murder statute retains the predicate felonies of 'aggravated child abuse' and 'aggravated child neglect' even though the offense of 'aggravated child neglect' contains the alternative that it may be committed through 'abuse."

Therefore, while the legislature seemed to include child abuse as a type of aggravated child neglect, the felony murder statute continues to separate both offenses.

Justice Tipton explained that while this is a blatant discrepancy, the standard of review requires the Court to presume that the legislature did not intend an absurd result and to avoid such result by reasonable construction, to the extent possible. In judging the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, the evidence was sufficient to prove that the Defendant abused the victim and that his beatings had an adverse effect on her health and welfare, and that she clearly suffered serious bodily injury. Therefore, as the statute for felony murder requires, the victim was killed in the perpetration of these acts.

It will be interesting to see when or if the legislature responds to this discrepancy.  Here it may not have made a difference in the end result, but clearly it could be problematic in future cases.