# FIL ED
Feb ru ary

1, 1996 Cecil W. Crow son A pp ellat e C ou rtC lerk I N THE C OU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NA SH VILLE OC TOBER1993 SESSI ON
STATE OF TENN ESSEE , ) ) Appel lan t, ) No. 01C 01- 9307- PB- 00219

) ) Dav ids on C ounty v . ) ) H on. J ames R . Ev erettt , J r. , J udg e ) JEFFERSON PENNINGT ON, ) (Di smissa l of DUI -State app eal) ) Appel lee
. )

DI SSEN TI NG OPI NI ON
I di ss ent. I ag re e w it h the maj or ity opi nio n tha t t he tw elv e- hour dete nti on w it hout all ow ing bond under the pol icy

st ipu lat ed by

the par ti es to ex is t c onst it uted puni shment
. In t his respect, I bel iev e tha t t he pol icy w oul d resul t i n s er iou s v iol ati ons of an ar re ste e's st atuto ry and cons ti tuti onal r ig hts , from il leg al detent ion throug h i ll eg al deni al of bail i nto fundamenta l v iol ati on of due p ro ces s. H ow ev er , I do n ot be li ev e tha t the D oubl e J eopardy

C lau se of eith er

the Fi fth Amendment to t he U nit ed St ates Constitu tion o r Article I, Section 10 of the T enn essee Constitu tion is imp licated in this cas e.
The doubl e j eopardy cl auses of the U nit ed St ates and Tenness ee cons ti tuti ons protect ag ain st both mult ipl e prosec uti ons for and mult ipl e puni shment s for th e s ame offense. Se e N orth C aroli na v . Pe arce, 395 U. S. 7 11, 7 17, 8 9 S. C t. 2072, 2076 ( 1969) ; U nit ed St ates v . J ohnso n, 58 4 F .2d 1 48, 1 53 ( 6th C ir . 197 8) , c ert. den ied, 4 00 U.S. 918 (1979 ); State v . Lowery , 667 S.W .2d 52 (Te nn. 198 4). In this re spect, the d efendant s eeks to defend the tr ial co urt' s c oncl usi on th at he w as puni shed by

the detent ion w it hout a pr ior adj udi cat ion of g uil t and that , t herefore, the2 state w as v iolating his rig ht againstmultip le pun ishm ent s bypursuing the DUI prosec uti on. He re li es upon U nit ed St ates v . H alp er , 490 U .S. 435, 448- 49, 1 09 S. C t. 1892, 1902 ( 1989)i n w hic h the Supreme C our t hel d "tha t und er

the Dou ble Je opardy Cl ause a defendant w ho al re ady has been puni shed in a c ri minal prosec uti on may not be s ubj ect ed to an a ddi ti onal ci v il sa nct ion to the e xtent that the s econd sa nct ion may not fai rl y be c haract er iz ed as remedia l, but onl y as a de ter re nt or

retr ibu ti on."
How ev er , for doubl e j eopardy pur poses the defendant' s p osi ti on, a nd th at of the maj or ity

opi nio n by

i mpli cat ion , dep ends upon c ertai n as sumpti ons that I am unw il li ng to make o n the record before us . The defendant as sumes thatthe tw elv ehou r deten tion was punishm entfor the sa me cond uct th at, if proven, w ill result in his puni shment

i n the D UI prosec uti on. I v iew the detent ion as st emming from t he defendant refusing to tak e the breath tes t, not from hi m bei ng found to be dr iv ing under the i nfluenc e. Therefore, I ca nnot say thatthe detent ion co nst it utes puni shmentfor t he "same o ffense, " i .e., D UI
. See B loc kburg er v . U nit ed St ates , 284 U .S. 299, 304 52 S. Ct . 180 , 182 ( 1932) ; St ate v . Bl ack , 524 S.W .2d 9 13, 9 19 ( Tenn. 1975 ).

Al so, I note that under

T.C .A. § 55- 10- 406( a) (3 ), refusing to submi t t o a bloo d alcoh ol test after bein g arrested results in suspe nsion of a driv er's license for six months
. The deter minat ion of w hether thi s s tatut e has been v iol ated is to be made by the t ri al jud g e dur ing the prosec uti on of the offense for w hic h the dr iv er w as ar re ste d. T .C.A. § 5 5-10 -406 (a)(3). It i s sig nif icant th at th e san ction a v ailable for ref using to take a bloo d alcoh ol test is notcontin gent up on a defend antbeing convicted of the of fense fo r wh ic h t h e p e rs o n is ch a rg e d
. T h is re f le c t s t h a tt h e le gi s la t u re in t e n d e d t h a tt h e two i s s ue s , ba s ed u po n s ep arat e c on du c t, b e trea te d s ep arat el y , al be i t i n th e s am e p ro ce e d in g.3 Obv iou sl y , t he s anct ion of detent ion i s n ot au thor iz ed for re fusing a t est
. How ever, this does no t bring i nto play the Double Jeop ardy C lause . In fact, it is also significan t tha t the defend antw ill be e ntitled , if convicted, to cred it upo n an y sente nce impos ed for the t ime he s pent in confine ment rela ti v e to thi s c ase. Se e T.C .A. § 40- 23-1 01(b ). In this respect, I canno t say tha t eithe r multiple prosecu tions o r multiple pun ishm ent s w ill be incu rred in this case, regardless of w het her the cond uct in issue is v iew ed to i nv olv e the "sa me offense. "

_________ _________

_________

____ Jo se p h M. T ip to n , J u d ge