You're a dumba$$.
Posted on 07/04/2004 7:21:31 AM PDT by Wolfie
Roadblock Conviction Overturned
CHATTANOOGA — When Dennis James Varner pulled his van into a checkpoint with an open beer, smelling like alcohol and having slurred speech, it was officers who made a mistake, a Tennessee appeals court ruled.
The Court of Criminal Appeals said in an opinion released this week that Hamilton County Sheriff's Department officers did not set up the roadblock primarily to catch drunken drivers, so his arrest and conviction violated constitutional bans on unreasonable search and seizure.
''Significantly, the officers had no equipment at the site for testing blood alcohol content,'' the appeals court said in throwing out Varner's conviction and dismissing the charge.
The appeals court also took exception to officers who selected the checkpoint location participating and having drug-sniffing dogs at the scene.
One of Varner's attorneys, Jerry Summers of Chattanooga, said abuses of checkpoints by law- enforcement agencies are not uncommon.
''They say they are doing one thing but are using subterfuge to ascertain other types of activity,'' he said.
In a ruling on Varner's challenge of the arrest, the appeals court reversed Judge Stephen Bevil's decision to allow evidence from the Sept. 1, 2000, checkpoint, where deputies including two K-9 officers stopped traffic and worked in the emergency lights and headlights of about 10 patrol cars.
Summers said court rulings don't allow officers at license or sobriety checkpoints to also have a drug dog and ''see if they (drivers) have got a marijuana roach in the trunk.''
Varner, 47, of Soddy Daisy, could not be reached for comment. Another attorney who represented him, Thomas Greenholtz of Chattanooga, said his client was ''pleased the court reversed his conviction.''
Jason Thomas, a Hamilton County assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case, said, ''There was no question we had a solid case based on the evidence. The roadblock was the only issue.''
Records show that while Hamilton County officer Ragan McDevitt described his assignment that night as ''working field sobriety checkpoints,'' Lt. James Newman said officers ''weren't specifically looking for anything.'' Newman described the checkpoint as a ''safety tool.''
The appeals court also said that while Newman testified the checkpoint location was selected because of fatal accidents and speeding, there was no testimony that ''either the accidents or the speeding were in any way related to drivers impaired by alcohol.''
The appeals court said there was ''no single specific goal in place for this particular roadblock. Rather the sheriff's department was seeking to inhibit speeding drivers, 'aggressive' drivers (of which the state offered no definition) and impaired drivers.''
More than 500 vehicles were stopped in one hour but ''the state offered no proof as to how many of these stops involved motorists driving under the influence,'' the court ruling said.
Thomas said the appeals court decision would not likely affect any pending cases involving checkpoints.
''It's an old case, sort of in a league of its own,'' Thomas said.
''They say they are doing one thing but are using subterfuge to ascertain other types of activity,'' he said
I almost agreed with an attorney! Damn them!
Ok ok ... once in a while there does seem to be one worth NOT put to the "tar & feathers"
ping
You're a dumba$$.
Sobriety and or safety checkpoints was declared unconstitutional in Texas many years ago. It is plain and simple illegal search and that practice needs to be stopped in other states as well.
This guy is a legend of a lawyer, in those parts. The guy must have been well healed to hire him.
Not sure but this may have something to do with the state of Texas' constitution. Remember, we were once an idependant republic .
Yes, law enforcement does have to call ball and pocket and show probable cause. A police state is just that, where the police can do anything it pleases, where did you study the constitution?
Not the same thing at all; detention is a specific act allowable only to serve the common good; planned roadblocks for fishing purposes are very narrowly allowed by an errant court (IMO).
Another one for Texas, YeeeHaaa
In other words sh!t-faced. High. Stoned. Drunk enough to kill somebody.
And I just love the way these yahoos jump to his defense. The cost of the lawyers needed to save his license would have paid a chauffeur to haul his soggy ass around until he had paid his debt.
WOW, you totally missed the boat with that one. Talk about apples and watermelons. Yes, an owner of property can be at his property whenever he so wishes. The police don't have that right. Get it?
In order to make your scenario analogous your hardware store owner would have to stop everyone leaving his store and pat them down to see if they were shoplifting.
Some of the "receipt checks" at our local Walmart approach this. There have been several threads on FR about people who choose not to stand in yet another line to have the contents of their bag verified.
Sobriety and or safety checkpoints was declared unconstitutional in Texas many years ago. It is plain and simple illegal search and that practice needs to be stopped in other states as well.Unfortunately, the Supreme Court inexplicably ruled them to be okay, so for the time being they must be fought locally.
One thing to note is that they depend on suprise. If every time they get set up, every bar in the area is informed of their existence and notifies their patrons, they will soon become highly ineffective. In an era of ubiquitous cell phones, this becomes an almost trivial exercise.
-Eric
Jerry Summers of ChattanoogaLawyers get to be legends by taking on high profile cases like this that get a lot of attention. Summers likely charged the guy a token fee in exchange for exclusive contact with the media regarding the case.This guy is a legend of a lawyer, in those parts. The guy must have been well healed to hire him.
-Eric
You know, you're right.
Cops should be able to stop you and search your car without probable cause or a warrant any time they feel like it.
And they should be able to come into your house and search it without probable cause or a warrant any time they feel like it.
Only people who have something to hide would object.
We don't need no steenking Constitution.
I have that same confusion...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.