The legitimate driver had just finished a regular tour of the downtown area when he parked the trolley at the Hard Rock Cafe along lower Broadway for a bathroom break. He left the trolley unlocked with the doors open so people could board for the next tour. In fact six tourists from Texas were on the trolley when Jason Carl Farmer, noticing the keys were in the vehicle, jumped on board and drove off. Farmer, 38, hit a pole and was was persuaded to drop the others off. He then continued driving west until he crashed with an SUV in the Belle Meade area of Nashville.

Police detected alcohol and noticed Farmer’s speech was slurred. Farmer admitted to having been on a drinking binge, stating that he had just moved to Nashville from Michigan and he had come to town to party. He also tried to justify his actions by stating that he had a chauffeur's license and claiming his father owned the party bus. They arrested him on suspicion of Tennessee DUI in Nashville. The results of a test for blood alcohol content are pending.

The trolley suffered damage estimated between $50,000 and $60,000. The legal driver was cited for not parking the vehicle widely and for leaving the keys in the vehicle.

Are you looking for a Nashville, TN DUI Lawyer?

Lawmakers in Tennessee have passed House Bill 3260 that defines any person using a motorized or non-motorized wheelchair as a pedestrian. Inversely that means the wheelchair is not a vehicle and the operator is not subject to driving under the influence in Tennessee.

Are you trying to find a Tennessee DUI Lawyer?

Under current Tennessee DUI laws, a motorist under the age of 21 arrested for driving under the influence must spend a minimum of 48 hours in jail. A motorist older than 21 however is only required to spend at least 24 hours in jail.

The new bill would make the minimum jail term the same, regardless of age. The legislation will be referred to the Senate to work out differences between the two bills, and then presented to the governor.

It is important that if you are arrested for drunk driving in Tennessee that you hire a qualified DUI attorney in Tennessee.

The amendment came under immediate fire from other state legislators on constitutional questions, and an opinion from the attorney general of Tennessee was requested. AG Bob Cooper has stated that Kurita’s effort is ‘vulnerable to constitutional attack’ on two fronts.

Cooper said that the Tennessee Supreme Court has the authority to regulate the courts and the attorneys who practice law in the state, and Kurita’s amendment improperly attempts to shift that power to the State Assembly.

In addition, the legislation violates the right to free speech guaranteed under the Federal First Amendment. Cooper elaborated that, because of the severity of the offense, DUI defendants have a greater interest in learning as much as possible about drunk driving defense attorneys before hiring one of them.

Kurita has responded by saying that she will “have to find another way” to attack driving under the influence in Tennessee.

Other Tennessee General Assembly law makers publicly say the provision violates First Amendment free speech rights. Senator Jim Kyle said, “If you’re in a legitimate business, you ought to be able to advertise.” Kurita countered that she is only concerned about certain advertising claims, especially one that states the drunk driving defense attorney will get you off.

The ethics rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court, however, already prohibit attorneys from guaranteeing a case result. Attorneys are also prohibited from claiming that they are specialists unless they have completed state certification in an area of specialization. In addition, Kurita’s amendment violates a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that allows attorneys with specialist certification to advertise that accomplishment.

The amendment calling for the advertising ban was approved by voice vote in the Senate Finance Committee and attached to pending legislation.

If you have been charged with Driving Under the Influence in Tennessee, you will need to seek legal representation from a DUI Defense Lawyer in Tennessee that can advise you of your legal rights and possible consequences if you are convicted of a DUI in Tennessee.

The legislators have been in partisan squabbles about sponsorship of competing and similar bills, though the proposed DUI laws appear to be making their way out of committee for consideration by the full Assembly.

A Senate bill calls for the automatic revocation of the driver’s license when a motorist is arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence in Tennessee. This is the only Tennessee DUI bill that has the open support of Governor Phil Bredesen.

One House bill would require all motorists convicted of drunk driving in Tennessee, including first offenders, to install an ignition interlock device in their vehicles. A second bill under consideration calls for mandatory interlock devices on the second or subsequent DUI in Tennessee. Currently the law allows judges to use their discretion to mandate the devices after a second drunk driving arrest.

Another House bill would lower the blood alcohol content for the designation of ‘extreme DUI’. Currently the BAC level is .20% and the proposed new threshold would be .15%. When the charge of extreme DUI is applied additional jail time is automatically mandated.

The House is also considering legislation that would prohibit the occupants in a vehicle from having an open container. Similar bills have been considered in the past with no consensus on punishment for the offense. The current measure calls for a flat fine.

The Criminal Practice Subcommittee has approved a House bill that calls for a minimum 48 hour jail term for first time DUI offenders. Three years ago a bill was passed that allowed offenders to divert 24 hours of jail time to a litter pick-up detail. The new legislation would require the entire jail term to be fulfilled, after which litter duty as community service would be required.

The state president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving said he felt they were going to have a “landmark year” in the passing of Tennessee DUI legislation.

Are you searching for a Tennessee DUI Lawyer?

The Assistant Chief Deputy spent about $2,000 of his own money transforming the vehicle. It has all the required equipment for a police vehicle, including sirens, radio, fingerprint kit and traffic cones. All of the official sheriff's department decals were scaled down and fabricated by the same company that produces the markings for the full size cruisers. A 1960's-vintage red bubble light on the roof finishes the look.

The 1600-cc engine only yields a top speed of about 70 miles per hour, leading to a humbling experience when motorists are pulled over.

If you have been arrested for drunk driving in Tennessee you will need to hire a Tennessee DUI attorney.

Callahan admitted to being the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. A breath test revealed a blood alcohol content about twice the legal limit for drunk driving in Tennessee.

Callahan graduated from the police academy less than two weeks ago and she was undergoing field training. She has been placed on desk duty until an internal investigation has been completed.

Are you looking for a Nashville DUI Attorney?

]]> http://www.dui.com/dui-library/tennessee/tennessee-dui admin Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:00:00 -0500

DUI Law Questions TN Roadblock - No Good DUI Punishment Costs Millions Supreme Court Ruling Hospital Refuses to Take Blood Work Off Drunk Driving Conviction	Tennessee Drunk Driving Sober Up On Tennessee DUI Law Tennessee Supreme Court Overturns ID Roadblocks Kentucky .08 Ruling Gives Suspects More Room to Fight
Last Update: Sunday, February 18, 2007

]]> http://www.dui.com/dui-library/tennessee/laws/work-off-conviction admin Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:00:00 -0500 DUI Laws Tennessee DUI New Tennessee Law Attracts Criticism

Knoxville, TN-A new state law permits DUI offenders to work off their first infraction by cleaning up litter along the roads while wearing a vest that states, "I am a drunk driver." Local officials of Knox County have expressed disapproval of the new punishment.

Courts can now sentence first-time offenders with a minimum of 24 hours of manual labor, entailing trash removal from roadsides.

David Collins, Knox County Commissioner, described the law as 'out of control," while County Sheriff Tim Hutchinson questioned the source of funds that will pay for the vans, vests, and deputies required put the new law into action.

While the law is designed to target first-time offenders in hopes of shaming them away from future offenses, critics say the program could bring negative results. Jacqueline Helfgott, chairperson and professor at the Criminal Justice Department of Seattle University, said, "If I'm forced to wear a sign saying that I'm a drunk driver, then I'm going to feel worse and worse about myself and I may drink more and more because I feel shunned."

Other states have methods of alerting the public and police about previous drunk driving convictions, however they are intended more to protect the public than to create shame for the offender. Ohio, for example, requires bright yellow license plates to expose to the public that the driver has been convicted of DUI.

Gov. Phil Bredesen stated that he opposes the new DUI law because he believes it weakens existing punishments that have already been established for DUI offenders over the age of 21.

"Although I am generally supportive of innovative forms of punishment to address this issue, I am concerned about the possibility of reduced jail time for DUI offenders," Bredesen stated in a letter to members of the House and Senate.

He did not veto the bill, but also didn't sign it. Under state law, a bill that is not signed or vetoed by the governor will become law within ten days.

MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) also opposes the new law. "In MADD's opinion it decreases the deterrent effect of the law," said Laura Dial, the MADD Tennessee executive director. "Jail time is more of a deterrent than community service, which is trash pickup."

July 11, 2005

Related Links:

• Tennessee DUI Laws
• Tennessee DUI Attorneys
• Tennessee Auto Insurance

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A new Tennessee law is enlisting the power of shame to discourage drunken driving.

Starting today, convicted drunken drivers are required to do 24 hours of roadside cleanup while wearing orange vests with the phrase: "I am a Drunk Driver."

The new law is aimed at first-time offenders, said one of its sponsors, state Rep. Charles Curtiss.

"You cause them to go out and pick up trash in front of their friends and neighbors, the embarrassment is going to be such that they're never going to want to go through that again," Curtiss said.

But shaming offenders without more meaningful treatment programs could have the opposite effect, said Jacqueline Helfgott, chairwoman of the criminal justice department at Seattle University.

"If I'm forced to wear a sign saying that I'm a drunk driver, then I'm going to feel worse and worse about myself and I may drink more and more because I feel shunned," she said.

Jeanne Mejeur, a research manager at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver, said Tennessee's law "is pretty much a unique program nationally."

Ohio requires yellow license plates for some convicted drunken drivers, and other states use less obvious coding on tags to alert police about DUI convictions. But those measures are targeted more at public safety than shame, Mejeur said.

The bill becomes law today without Gov. Phil Bredesen's signature.

"Although I am generally supportive of innovative forms of punishment to address this issue, I am concerned about the possibility of reduced jail time for DUI offenders," Bredesen wrote to legislative leaders.

That is echoed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

"The best deterrent to drunk driving is jail time, not community service," said Laura Dial, Tennessee's MADD director.

SOURCE: St. Petersburg Times

The Tennessee Supreme Court has upheld a ruling of Criminal Court Judge Rebecca Stern in a case involving a traffic stop.

Judge Stern had ruled out evidence that led to DUI and obstructing traffic charges against Kirk Williams.

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the decision of Judge Stern, saying the stop and seizure were valid.

But the decision written by Supreme Court Justice William M. Barker of Signal Mountain reinstates the Stern ruling.

The state high court said, "We hold that the defendant was seized by the officer when the officer approached the defendant in his patrol car and activated his blue emergency lights. Under the facts of this case, a seizure occurred regardless of whether the vehicle was already stopped at the time the officer approached. We also uphold the trial court’s determination that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. Therefore, the trial court correctly granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the stop. The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the decision of the trial court suppressing the evidence is reinstated."

Source: http://www.chattanoogan.com/

DUI Defense Gets a Little Easier

COURT OVERTURNS CONVICTION CLAIMING ALCOHOL LEVEL WHILE DRIVING DIDN'T MATTER

By Brandon Ortiz

HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER

A Kentucky Supreme Court ruling yesterday gave suspected drunk drivers room to question blood-alcohol tests that are narrowly above the legal limit.

The court unanimously overturned the 2003 driving under the influence conviction of Nelson Lopez of Lexington. It said county prosecutors erroneously argued that it did not matter what his blood-alcohol level was when he was driving, so long as it measured above the legal limit of 0.08 within two hours of his leaving the car.

Defense attorney Fred E. Peters argued that such a standard could allow prosecutors to convict someone who hadn't taken a sip of alcohol before he was on the road. He listed several hypothetical scenarios, including one of a stranded motorist who has a drink while waiting for assistance with his broken-down car.

He also said it can take as long as 60 to 90 minutes after alcohol is consumed for it to actually enter the bloodstream, though he offered no evidence of that at trial.

Lopez was charged with DUI on Oct. 11, 2002, and blew a 0.08 blood-alcohol level about an hour after his arrest.

In an interview yesterday, Peters said the ruling is a small win for defense attorneys. He said some local judges have prohibited defendants from arguing that an alcomonitor test didn't reflect their blood-alcohol level when they were actually driving.

"It's still a tough sell, but it at least gives you a chance to put on a defense," Peters said.

Fayette County Attorney Margaret H. Kannensohn said the ruling creates confusion for prosecutors. She said it effectively prohibits them from arguing a third of the jury instructions in drunken driving cases.

"It would be as if a soldier were given three bullets with instructions to fire them," she said, "then told that they had wrongly fired the third bullet, which leads to confusion."

She said county prosecutors will have to review the decision to figure out how to proceed. She added that she hopes the General Assembly clarifies the issue during its next session.

The state chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving worried that the ruling will hinder prosecution of drunken drivers.

"When the public believes or perceives that the DUI laws don't have teeth, then it breeds disdain for the law," state executive director Angela Leigh said.

See Article: www.kentucky.com

more:

LEXINGTON, Ky. A Kentucky Supreme Court ruling now gives drunk drivers room to question blood-alcohol tests that are narrowly above the legal limit.

Yesterday the court unanimously overturned the ruling of a Lexington man, who was convicted of driving under the infuence.

Nelson Lopez was charged with a D-U-I on October 11th, 2002, and blew a 0.08 blood-alcohol level about an hour after his arrest.

The court says county prosecutors wrongly argued that it didn't matter what his blood-alcohol level was when he was driving, as long as Lopez's level measured above the legal limit of 0.08 within two hours of his leaving the car.

Defense attorney Fred E. Peters says that standard could allow prosecutors to convict someone who hadn't taken a sip of alcohol before driving on the road.

See Article: WKYT 27

Tennessee veered off course with its drunken driving law and, thanks to the work of a special task force, the state stands a good chance of seeing the law improved.

State law used to require first-time DUI offenders to spend 48 hours in jail. It was a tough-minded statute. But the legislature had the bright idea that it would be better to cut that jail time to 24 hours and add 24 hours of service during which offenders would have to wear an orange vest that said, "I am a Drunk Driver" and pick up trash on the roadway, which essentially gave DUI offenders a day of fresh air. And whether it truly humiliated or embarrassed anybody as cars whizzed by is open to debate.

The law, which went into effect Jan. 1 without the signature of Gov. Phil Bredesen, created a lot of complaints, including those from sheriffs who said they had little money to oversee cleanup crews, although legislators later provided more funds. But Bredesen formed a task force this year to look at DUI laws, which he said had become confusing. Panel recommendations include repealing the so-called shaming law. The task force, which included representatives from law enforcement and citizen groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said many counties haven't been implementing the road crews. The task force recommended that the sentence for first-time offenders go back to 48 hours, and recommended DUI education classes.

Bredesen liked the group's advice, but some of the proposals will probably lead to more discussion; among them, extending the state open-container law to passengers, which could raise all sorts of questions.

The group also wants to let law enforcement officials revoke the driver's license of someone suspected of DUI who won't submit to a breath test, then allowing application for a restricted license. A driver who refuses to take a breath test now may keep a license until a court hearing. The group also calls for using technology such as the device that requires a breath test for a car to start.

DUI laws should be constantly monitored and constantly tough. The one sure thing is that the 48-hour jail time should be re-imposed. The state should want to deal aggressively with drunken drivers. The vest gimmick should be ditched.

Thursday, 9 November 2006
Source: Associated Press/AP Online

CHA Police Officer Ralph Brown had stopped Jerry W. Hayes, Jr. at 6:30pm on August 13, 2002, asking him if he was a resident and if he had his papers. Hayes produces his driver's license which had been suspended because of an overdue fine. Brown also noticed unopened bottles of beer in the car and charged Hayes with possession of alcohol because, at the time, Hayes was just two months short of twenty-one.

The high court overturned Hayes' conviction because it did not believe, contrary to police claims, that the primary purpose of the checkpoint was safety. The evidence showed the roadblocks were successful instead at issuing expensive tickets.

"There are elements of subterfuge evident in the operation of this entry identification checkpoint," the court wrote. "If the checkpoint was being operated solely to establish a legitimate connection between the would-be entrant and the community, however, Officer Brown had no reason to 'also' demand the person's driver's license if he or she had already produced a Poss Homes identification badge... Because persons may legitimately drive vehicles belonging to others, however, a vehicle registration document is of questionable value in determining the identity of the driver. Proof of insurance is relevant to nothing other than determining compliance with the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated chapter twelve."

The court saw no evidence that the checkpoint increased the safety of residents, nor that the crime was solely being conducted by "outsiders." Because the police had no list of residents or guests, there was no real way to tell from a driver's license whether any stopped individual belonged in the complex or not.

"In their zeal to preserve and protect, however, our police officers must respect the fundamental constitutional rights of those they are sworn to serve," the court concluded. "Entry identification checkpoints of the type used here result in the abrogation of one of those fundamental constitutional rights. Such checkpoints cannot, therefore, be countenanced, no matter how lofty their goals. The ends, in this case, simply do not justify the means."

Source: Tennessee v. Hayes (Supreme Court of Tennessee, 4/20/2006) http://www.thenewspaper.com/