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?

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 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/news/tennessee-drunk-driving admin Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:00:00 -0500 DUI News Tennessee DUI Tennessee enlists shame to fight drunken driving
By Associated Press Published January 1, 2006

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

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

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/

Police say Danny Balderas was drunk, but when they drove him to Metro General to get a blood sample they didn't get any cooperation.

Witnesses told police Balderas' was driving his SUV on Woodmont Boulevard when he ran through the traffic light at Hillsboro Road.

Danny Balderas was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after Metro police said he drove through an intersection and slammed into another car, injuring a female passenger.

Police found alcohol in Balderas' SUV. The officer also smelled alcohol on his breath and said Balderas was slurring his speech. The officer said he took a field sobriety test and he failed it.

When they took him to the hospital for a blood alcohol test, he said he only had some drinks with dinner.

When the officer took Balderas to Metro General to have blood drawn, he says the nurse on duty and supervisor would not do it because Balderas would not consent.

The accused drunk driver refused to take a breathalyzer or have blood taken, but according to the arresting officer, under state law a hospital must draw blood for a test even if the arrested person refuses.

The officer then got one of the Davidson County DA's on the phone in the middle of the night to tell the hospital about the law.

But the hospital still refused to take the blood.

Now, the family of the victim in the crash has hired an attorney to look into the legal question.

"There is an exception to the implied consent," explained Alan Poindexter. "That is if the person is charged with vehicular homicide or aggravated assault then you don't need their consent because of the exigent circumstances that exist. Now, [if] the blood [is]dissipating quickly over time and you really don't have time to obtain a search warrant, then you can take that blood by force."

Metro General's legal department said it has not been able to find any case law or specific statute giving its staff the authorization or mandate to take blood without a person's consent, unless the police have a police warrant.

The blood sample was not taken, but at this point it doesn't look like it will hurt the case, according the officer.

However, without having that BAC, or blood alcohol concentration level number, Balderas may get a lighter sentence if convicted.

Rescuers had to use the Jaws of Life to get to the victim. Lorie Kindrat,19, is still in the hospital undergoing surgery.

Her family says she has bleeding in her brain, a cracked vertebrae and she may lose her eye.

See Article: newschannel5.com

July 2, 2004

CHATTANOOGA (AP) -- A state appeals court says that when Dennis James Varner pulled up at a checkpoint with an open beer, smelling like alcohol and slurred speech, it was Hamilton County officers who made a mistake.

The Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that Hamilton County Sheriff's Department officers did not set up the road block primarily to catch drunken drivers so Varner's conviction stemmed from an unconstitutional search.

The appeals court in throwing out the conviction and dismissing the charge Monday said it was significant that officers had no equipment to test blood alcohol content.

The judges also took exception to the presence of a drug dog.

Varner's attorney, Jerry Summers of Chattanooga, says abuses of checkpoints by law enforcement agencies are not uncommon.

Summers says they say they are doing one thing but are using subterfuge to determine other types of activity.

Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

Reported by Will Carr

Hamilton County's Assistant District Attorney says Tennessee does not have a provision for a D.U.I. offender who has more than four offenses. This comes after a Chattanooga man was charged with his 8th d-u-i this past weekend.

The former president of Hamilton County's Mother's Against Drunk Drivers says there is only one way to deal with re-peat D.U.I. offenders.

"They need to be locked up. There are laws that will do that. We just have to do our part," Jim Herman says.

Herman is the former president of Hamilton County's M.A.D.D, and he says people who have been charged multiple times for D.U.I. should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

This comes after Donald Lowery was charged with his eighth D.U.I. Saturday night. Lowery hit two un-occupied cars on Dodson Avenue including a 2004 Saturn.

"You know I think there are plenty of law right there, we just need to enforce those laws," Herman says.

Assistant District Attorney Jay Woods says they're doing everything possible to prosecute D.U.I. offenders.

"We are eager to make sure that offenders such as this eighth offender aren't continuing to endanger the public," Woods says.

Right now a first time D.U.I. offender receives a misdemeanor, a mandatory 24 hours in jail, and a suspended driver's license for a year.

The second offense has a minimum of 45 days in jail and a driver's license suspension of two years.

A third offense carries a minimum 120 days of jail time and a driver's license suspension of three to ten years.

A fourth offense turns into a felony conviction and jail time of at least 150 consecutive days.

"After that a fifth offender still has the same minimum 150 days to serve. Sixth, seventh, eighth the minimum is still 150 days to serve," Woods says.

So no matter how many offenses the minimum remains the same as a four time offender. "We need a minimum sentence that addresses a multiple offender who continues to pick up D.U.I.'s after he's become a felon," Woods says.

Right now its up to the judge and the prosecutor's discretion on how to deal with offenders who have more than four D.U.I.'s. And Woods says a package is going in front of legislature this year that will deal with repeat offenders.

Source: http://www.wrcbtv.com