31 DUI arrests reported for New Year's Eve in 16 counties around Chattanooga

The Times Free Press reports today that 31 DUI arrests occurred over New Years as part of the "No Refusal" enhanced enforcement.

The Tennessee Highway Patrol arrested 96 people on suspicion of impaired driving in the 16 counties that participated in "No Refusal" enforcement efforts over the New Year's holiday.

In Hamilton County, 31 were arrested for DUI suspicion and one individual was compelled to take a blood test, according to a THP news release. A total of 48 seat belt citations were issued in Hamilton County.

Twenty-five bar checks were conducted where troopers visited bars in Hamilton County to remind patrons to be careful on the roadway.

"It's awareness and promoting safety," THP Lt. John Harmon of the Chattanooga district said, when asked about the goal of sobriety checkpoints.

The use of the THP hotline, *847, skyrocketed over the holiday period. For the entire Chattanooga 12-county district, 310 calls were received. During the same time period over an extended weekend in December, only 58 calls were received, Harmon said.

The "No Refusal" law allows officers to seek search warrants for blood samples in cases where impaired driving is suspected but suspects refuse to take a Breathalyzer test.

This year's enforcement period ran from 6 p.m. Dec. 28 through New Year's Day. In Hamilton County, there were two sobriety checkpoints and two driver's license checkpoints.

"The locations are picked for safety, traffic conditions -- traffic flow and points where DUIs have been received in the past," Harmon said.

Preliminary reports from the THP indicate that five people were killed in three separate crashes in participating "No Refusal" areas, specifically Hamilton, Knox and Wilson counties. None was alcohol-related.

Statewide, seven people were killed in five crashes during the New Year's Eve period, compared to five vehicular fatalities during last year's period. Two of the vehicle occupants were not wearing seat belts and two were pedestrians.
By Lee Davis

U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on DUI Forced Blood Draws

By Jay Perry           

            The U.S. Supreme Court has just granted certiorari to hear an appeal to decide whether the police can force a suspected drunken driver to submit to a blood test without a search warrant.  The case is an appeal from a decision by the Missouri Supreme Court, Missouri v.McNeely, which held that in a typical DUI case the police must obtain a search warrant before forcing a suspect to provide a blood sample.  The State argued that the delay in obtaining a warrant would allow for the alcohol in a suspect’s blood to naturally dissipate and thus the “evidence” would be destroyed.  The question before the Supreme Court then is whether the “exigent circumstances” exception to the 4^th Amendment warrant requirement allows for the police to force a blood draw from a DUI suspect.    

            

            The decision by the Supreme Court will be very important because as it stands there is considerable variety in state laws regarding forced blood draws.  Here in Tennessee, there are currently a few situations in which the police can obtain a blood sample without either the suspect’s consent or a search warrant:

            1) the suspect is involved in an accident resulting in the injury or death of another;

2) the suspect has a previously been convicted of DUI, Vehicular Homicide by Intoxication, or Aggravated Vehicular Assault;

3) the suspect has a child passenger in the car under the age of 16.

In each of the three situations above, if police have probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed a DUI, they can force that person to give a blood sample without consent.

Even if one of the above situations isn’t present, a DUI suspect will still have to consider whether to provide a blood sample.  In Tennessee, all persons driving are presumed to have given consent to a test to determine the alcohol content of their blood.  Failure to provide either a blood or breath sample is a violation of Tennessee’s Implied Consent Law.  That provision (TCA 55-10-406), holds that refusal to submit to a blood alcohol sample is a violation of state law.  Importantly, a violation of the Implied Consent Law is not a criminal offense but does carry a loss of driving privileges for one year.    

The Supreme Court’s decision will answer the question of whether a forced blood draw violates the 4^th Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable searches”.  The constitutionality of the above Tennessee provisions will likely be affected by how they rule, and so the case merits attention.  Oral arguments will be scheduled sometime in early 2013.  

Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals upholds Conviction for DUI: no requirement for police to give blood or breath test.

by Lee Davis

Intoximeter

In State of Tennessee v. Gail Lynn Padgett, a Knox County woman was convicted of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (her fourth conviction), driving on a revoked license and two counts of disorderly conduct. The trial court sentenced Padgett to one year in jail with 150 days served in conferment and the rest on probation. Her license was revoked for five years and she was required to attend DUI school. 

Padgett has appealed, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction, the trial court erred in denying her Motion to Dismiss for the State’s failure to preserve evidence and for denying her Motion to Suppress evidence of her actions to police due to lack of the probable cause necessary to have arrested her in the first place. The State Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Padgett’s claims and affirmed the ruling of the trial court.

Padgett first filed a Motion to Suppress arguing that video evidence attained by the arresting officer’s police car should be suppressed due to the lack of probable cause in arresting her. The facts showed the following: At a little after 8 in the morning on May 28, 2008, Officer James Wilson got a call about an accident. He arrived and testified that before exiting his vehicle he turned on the microphone and video recorder in his police cruiser. 

While speaking to those at the scene, Wilson hit a car passing by her driveway. Padgett started yelling that she was not in the wrong. Wilson allegedly observed Padgett stumbling and detected a very strong odor of alcohol on her breath. Based on this behavior he placed her under arrest. Because of Padgett’s erratic behavior he was unable to perform any field sobriety tests. Wilson later swore out a warrant for her arrest noting her slurred speech, glassy bloodshot eyes and her unsteadiness while walking. Wilson admits to not listing the smell of alcohol and explained that he must have just forgotten to write it down. The trial court agreed that Officer Wilson had probable cause to arrest Padgett for disorderly conduct, not DUI, and denied Padgett’s Motion to Suppress.

Padgett then filed a Motion to Dismiss due to lack of evidence. No blood alcohol test was ever performed nor was a Breathalyzer test administered. Wilson claims this was because of Padgett’s wild behavior following her arrest. The trial court again denied Padgett’s Motion and decided to proceed. 

At trial much the same evidence was discussed. The video and audio recordings were also admitted into evidence and seemed to support much of what Officer Wilson had testified to. 

On appeal, Padgett contends that because no field sobriety tests were performed there can be no evidence to support a DUI conviction. The State counters by saying that other evidence supports such a conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the state, citing the three witnesses who testified to Padgett’s appearance and behavior that day. Such evidence is adequate for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that she was under the influence and a field sobriety test is not required to support a DUI conviction.

With regard to Padgett’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court of Criminal Appeals says that there is no duty by an officer to administer a blood alcohol test. The only requirement is that if such a test is not administered, then that failure shall be “admissible in evidence in a criminal proceeding.” T.C.A. Section 55-10-407(b). Here that hurdle was cleared as the jury was fully informed during both direct and cross-examination that Wilson did not request that Padgett submit to a blood alcohol test. 

Turning to the Motion to Suppress, the Court says that Wilson had sufficient probable cause to justify an arrest for disorderly conduct and that Wilson did not have to explain to Padgett that she was being arrested for such a charge in order to make the arrest valid. The Court went further in saying that Wilson did have probable cause to arrest Padgett for DUI. Under T.C.A. Section 40-7-103(a)(6), Wilson personally observed Padgett’s behavior and actions and believed she was intoxicated, thus granting him the probable cause necessary to arrest Padgett for DUI.

For the full opinion, click here.

Earlier:

Shocking Allegations Concerning Behavior of Knoxville Judge in Christian/Newsom Slaying

New Tennessee Campus Crime Report Released