Archive for March, 2012
In this week’s podcast, host and Knoxville DUI attorney Steve Oberman presents Part 2 of a podcast series explaining some of the Collateral Consequences that result from a Tennessee DUI conviction. The purpose of this series is to summarize some, but certainly not all, of the lesser known consequences one faces if convicted of DUI. This episode focuses on the potential effects of a Tennessee Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in Tennessee on parental rights and immigration status.
Our Knoxville, TN DUI lawyers are also happy to answer any questions you may have about these and other issues surrounding a Tennessee DUI charge and the resulting penalties. Feel free to call our office at (865) 249-7200. For issues surrounding parental rights and the status of non-citizens, our attorneys can also refer you to Tennessee attorneys knowledgeable in these areas of law.
Additional information about the Collateral Consequences of a Tennessee DUI conviction, as well as the Tennessee DUI penalties mandated by law can be found by visiting the website of Knoxville DUI attorneys, Oberman & Rice, at www.tndui.com and www.duiknoxville.com. Part 1 of this series, Collateral Consequences of a TN DUI Conviction – Part 1, can also be heard by clicking here.
In 2012 Senate Bill 2787, Senator Brian Kelsey, a Republican from Germantown (part of Shelby County), has sponsored a bill allowing a person who is “properly trained,” but not necessarily certified to draw the blood of a person suspected of DUI to determine alcohol and/or drug content. What should concern Tennessee citizens is that this bill removes the requirement found in current law (T.C.A. Section 55-10-410 which deals with drawing blood in driving under the influence/implied consent violation situations) that the person drawing the blood shall be:
A registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, clinical laboratory technologist, clinical laboratory technician, licensed emergency medical technician, licensed paramedic or, notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, licensed emergency medical technician approved to establish intravenous catheters, technologist, or certified and/or nationally registered phlebotomist or at the direction of a medical examiner or other physician holding an unlimited license to practice medicine in Tennessee under procedures established by the department of health.
Remarkably, there are no provisions in this bill detailing the amount of training or even requiring that the person drawing the blood pass a proficiency test. Nor are there provisions requiring a judge to determine that probable cause (the legal grounds required for arrest) exists before the blood is taken from the body.
While I am certainly far from a health care professional, I have had substantial experience as a non-certified phlebotomist when I worked in a hospital blood laboratory, albeit about 35 years ago. I am aware of some of the potential complications from an improper blood draw such as thrombophlebitis, infection, damage to blood vessels, hematoma/bruising, and damage to the nerves near the venipuncture site.
Moreover, the proposed law gives no consideration to the fact that the officer may suffer from a contagious disease, is working in poor lighting conditions, or may be distracted by law enforcement duties during the blood draw. If a medical condition occurs during a blood draw—the criminally accused would have no immediate access to a healthcare provider for treatment. In some situations, such as infection, the symptoms, etc. may manifest long after the actual blood draw.
Not surprisingly, the proposed law provides that the person drawing blood shall not incur any civil or criminal liability as a result of drawing the blood, except for damages that may result from negligence. This means that a law enforcement officer with minimal training would be allowed to draw blood from a suspect with their arm on the hood of the police vehicle or similar unsterile environment. This could be done without supervision from any other person, opening the door to abuse and negligence that would be difficult to prove except in a rare circumstance where the invasion of one’s body would be documented by video.
In 2006, Ann Japenga, a reporter for the New York Times, wrote about her debilitating injury that, after much suffering, was determined to have been caused by the needle going through her vein and causing dangerous but invisible bleeding into her arm. The injury, caused by a phlebotomist in her doctor’s office, required surgery “to prevent permanent loss of the use of [her] arm, as well as a condition called “claw hand” that causes your digits to curl up like a sea anemone.” The full article can be accessed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/health/30case.html.
Simply allowing the injured party to sue for negligence, as Senator Kelsey proposes, is not an appropriate remedy. This type of case would have limited allowances for recovery. With few exceptions, Tennessee law limits recovery against governmental entities to the amount of $300,000.00 pursuant to The Governmental Tort Liability Act. Furthermore, this type of recovery would likely require the services of a civil lawyer who would (and should) charge a fee for his or her services. Accordingly, the injured party would likely receive less than two-thirds of a recovery after attorney fees. Moreover, expert fees, deposition costs and other trial expenses would have to be borne by the injured party.
If you have ever had a medical professional who is certified to draw your blood need to “stick” you on several occasions to obtain a sufficient sample, you can only imagine the type of abuse a suspect would receive from an uncertified law enforcement official. I urge you to contact your Legislator to vote against this bill.
It is also most interesting that Senator Kelsey is sponsoring another bill making it a crime that carries a penalty of up to 30 days in jail for a law enforcement officer to unlawfully install a tracking device on a person or object (2012 Senate Bill 3046). If he doesn’t trust a police officer to comply with a citizen’s right to privacy, how in the world would he expect an officer not to abuse a suspect when they stick a sharp object into their arm or other part of their body?
The lawyers at Oberman & Rice frequently monitor pending legislation that impacts the criminally accused, paying particular attention to those involving Tennessee DUI cases. Should you have any questions about a Tennessee DUI issue, you may contact Steve, Sara, or Nate by calling (865) 249-7200. You may also wish to review our website for additional information about Tennessee DUI Laws by clicking here.
The Tennessee Highway Patrol has announced plans to conduct at least six checkpoints over the next two months, from March 9 through April 20, 2012. The planned checkpoints are not always labeled Sobriety Checkpoints or DUI Roadblocks. Some checkpoints are referred to as Driver’s License Roadside Safety Checkpoints.
It is important for Tennessee motorist to understand that even if a checkpoint is designed to verify driver’s licenses, the Troopers conducting the stops are trained to detect and investigate those drivers they suspect of Driving Under the Influence (DUI). For instance, the THP participates in the Governor’s Highway Safety Office campaign–Booze It & Lose It!
The announced locations for checkpoints, as reported in the Knoxville News Sentinel, are:
Friday, March 9 – Schaad Road – West of Pleasant Ridge Road
Friday, March 23 – Oak Ridge Highway (Route 62) – East of Pellissippi Parkway (Route 162)
Friday, April 6 – Maynardville Highway (Route 33) – At Loyston Road
Friday, April 13 – Schaad Road – West of Pleasant Ridge Road
Friday, April 20 – Schaad Road – West of Pleasant Ridge Road
Anyone detained and then arrested at a Sobriety Checkpoint or Driver’s License Roadside Safety Checkpoint should immediately contact a Tennessee attorney familiar with DUI Roadblocks or Driver’s License Checkpoints. For more information about the crime of DUI or about your legal rights relating to a Tennessee Highway Patrol roadblock, Sara, Steve, or Nate are available by calling (865) 249-7200.
Posted by Sara Compher-Rice in Court Procedures, DUI First Offense Penalties, DUI Fourth Offense, DUI Penalties, DUI Second Offense, DUI Third Offense, Frequently Asked Questions, Hiring a Tennessee DUI Attorney, Legal Rights, Tennessee DUI Consequences, Tennessee DUI Information, Tennessee DUI Laws, Tennessee DUI Penalties on March 6th, 2012
The number of prior DUI convictions in a defendant’s past significantly affects the amount of jail time a defendant may expect to serve if he or she is convicted of a Tennessee DUI. It is important to note that the prior convictions need not be from Tennessee. Even out of state DUI convictions can be used against a person accused of committing a Tennessee DUI offense.
Tennessee DUI law requires minimum amounts of jail time to be served for all DUI convictions. If a defendant is convicted of a DUI, the judge MUST sentence that defendant to the minimum amount of time established by Tennessee DUI law, ranging from 48 hours in jail up to 150 days in jail, depending upon the offense. On the other hand, the judge may sentence a defendant to more than the mandatory minimum amount of time – this is more likely to occur with multiple convictions. Please visit our website for a full list of penalties for DUI convictions.
TN DUI lawyers know that any time in jail causes a major disruption in a person’s life, which is why anyone charged with DUI in Tennessee should consult with a Tennessee DUI attorney as soon as possible. If you have questions about your Tennessee DUI charge and associated penalties, our lawyers are available to assist you. Sara, Steve, or Nate will be happy to speak with you at (865) 249-7200.