 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Nidiffer11/10/2004
at the defendant's driver's license should be suspended pursuant to the implied consent statute because, among other things, when the officers read the defendant the implied consent form, they told him he was under arrest. Conversely, the defendant contends that he was not under arrest based upon our supreme court's holding in Crutcher.
In this case, we are asked to review the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law from the implied consent hearing. The trial court's findings of fact "will be upheld unless the evidence preponderates otherwise." State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996). However, "the application of the law to the facts found by the trial court . . . is a question of law" which this court reviews de novo. State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997); Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23. Because the facts in this case are undisputed, we review the trial court's application of the law to those facts de novo. See State v. Troxell, 78 S.W.3d 866, 870 (Tenn. 2002).
Tennessee's implied consent law provides, in pertinent part,
(3) If such person having been placed under arrest and thereafter having been requested by a law enforcement officer to submit to such test and advised of the consequences for refusing to do so, refuses to submit, the test shall not be given, and such person shall be charged with violating this subsection.
T.C.A. § 55-10-406(a)(3) (emphasis added); accord State v. Turner, 913 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tenn. 1995) (recognizing that a defendant must be under arrest when he or she refuses to consent in order to be charged with violating the implied consent law).
Our supreme court has addressed the question of what constitutes an arrest in Tennessee. In Crutcher, an officer pursued three individuals on motorcycles. Although two of the individuals stopped, the defendant attempted to escape but eventually lost control and crashed. The officer arrived at the scene of the accident and attempted to take the defendant into custody by placing the defendant's arm behind his back, intending to handcuff him. However, when the defendant began to complain of pain, the officer stopped and called for emergency medical personnel. When the paramedics arrived, they took the defendant to the hospital. After the defendant was on his way to the hospital, the officer searched the defendant's motorcycle and backpack, finding a handgun and cocaine. Our supreme court granted appeal in order to determine whether the officer's actions at the scene of the accident constituted an arrest, thereby entitling the officer to search the defendant's backpack without offending the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The court held that the officer had not arrested the defendant and stated,
In Tennessee, an arrest is . . . defined as "the taking, seizing, or detaining of the person of another, either by touching or putting hands on him, or by any act which indicates an intention to take him into custody and subjects the person arrested to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest." West v. State, 425 S.W.2d 602, 605 (Tenn. 1968); Robertson v. State, 198 S.W.2d 633, 635-36 (Tenn. 1947); State v. Williams, 914 S.W.2d 940, 947 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). An arrest may be affected without formal words or a station house booking. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arrest § 2 (1995). However, there must be actual restraint on the arrestee's freedom of movement under legal authority of the arresting officer. . . . If law enforcement officers intend to justify a search as incident to an arrest, it is incumbent upon them to take some action that would indicate to a reasonable person that he or she is under arrest.
Crutcher, 989 S.W.2d at 301-302 (emphasis added). In re
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|