# FILED September 30, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN T HE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPE ALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVI LLE JUNE SE SSION, 1997
ST ATE OF TE NN ES SE E, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9607-CC-00323 ) Appell ee, ) ) DICKSON COU NTY ) V. ) ) HON. LEONA RD MARTIN, JUDGE M ART HA L . PE NN ING TO N, ) ) Ap pella nt. ) (DU I CER TIFIE D Q UE ST ION OF LAW )
FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : M ICH AEL J . FLAN AGAN JOHN KNOX WALKUP Att orneyat L aw Attor ney General & Reporter 95 W hit e Brid ge Road #208 Nashvil le, TN 37205 DARY L J. BRAND Assist ant Attor ney General 425 Fifth Avenue North 2nd Floor , Cordel l Hul l Bui ldi ng Nashvil le, TN 37243 DAN M. AL SOBROOKS Dist ri ct Attor ney General ROBERTS. WIL SON Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney Gener al P.O. Box 580 Charlotte, TN 37036 OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFI RMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUD GE-2- 

# OPINION

The Defendant , M art ha L. Penni ngton, entered a guil ty p lea t o the offense of dr iv ing und e r the influenc e of an intoxicant (D UI) in the C ircuit Cou rt of Dic kson County . The Defendantrecei ved a sentenc e of el even (11) months and twen ty-nine (29) d ays, w ith all bu t fo rty-eigh t ( 48) hours of t he sentence suspended. She was fi ned $350.00 and ordered to p ay courtcosts . With t he consentof t he Stat e and the trial c ourt, Defendantexpl ici tl y res erved a cert if ied questi on of l aw disposi ti ve ofthe cas e pursuantto Tennessee Rul es ofCrimina l Procedure 3 7(b)( 2)(i ). The certi fi ed questi on of l aw in t his appeal is: “Whether orno t the de ten tion of th e d efe nd an t, in this case, under the poli cy of t he Dickson Co unty Sh eriff’s D epa rtme nt, co nsti t utes puni shment so as t o precl ude further prosecut ion on do ub le jeo pa rdy g rou nd s or viola tes the de fen da nt’s due process rights .” Aft er a t horough r evi ew of t he record, we affi rm the j udgment of t he tr ial cou rt.
Counsel for Defendant al so repre sented anot her cl ientin an unrel ated cas e, with the i denti cal i ssue presen ted as a c ert if ied quest ion oflaw in this co urt. See Sta te v. James E. Irwin , No. 01 C01-9603-CC-00096, Dickson Co unty, (Tenn. Cri m. App., Nashvil le, March 27, 1997) ( Rule 11 appli cati on fi led May 19, 1997) . Bot h cases arose as a resul t ofa poli cy deci sion of the Di ckson Co unty Sh eriff’s De pa rtm en t reg ard ing po st-a rres t de ten tion in all DUI cases f or a minimum period of time before al lowing rel ease on bail . Test imony ofDickson Co unty Sh eriff T om W all in t he Irwin case was made an exhibi t bysti pulat ion of th e part ies i n the cas e sub judice . Al so, a t ranscr iptof t he enti re suppression-3-

heari ng in the Irwin cas e, in clu din g th e fin din gs of fa ct a nd con clu sio ns of la w in the tr ial courtin t hat case was made an exhibi t i n DefendantPenningt on’s c ase. Furthe rmo re , the parti es sti pulat ed in t he presentcase th at t he same poli cy of post-arrest detent ion was i n eff ect i n DefendantPenningt on’s c ase as wa s in effectat t he ti me of the defendant’ s arr est i n Irwin . Th e sa m e trial co urt jud ge hea rd both cas es. Onl y th e Defendanttest if ied dur ing t he suppressi on heari ng. The affid avit o f co m pla int w hic h led t o the i ssuance ofthe ar restwarrantfor Defendantand the wr itten r esult s of t he Int oxi meter 3000 t est gi ven to Defe ndant fol lowi ng her ar restwere admitted i nto ev idence bysti pulat ion.
FACTS
In the ear lyeveni ng hours ofSeptember 30, 1995, Officer A ndre O rr ofthe Dickson Police D epa rtmen t saw a pickup truck driven by De fenda nt swe rve on Hig hw ay 4 7 in Dic kso n. O rr tur ne d h is patrol car around and began fol lowi ng t he tr uck, obs er vi ng i t w eav i ng f ro m th e l eft to t he r i ghtsi de o f t he road . He stopped the vehicle an d obs erved “a stron g od or of a lcoh ol” up on th e D efen dan t. She admitt ed to d ri nking one beer. W hil e the affi davi t ofcomplai nt st ates t hat Defendantwas giv en three (3) fi eld sobr iety te sts, itdoes not p rovide the re sults ofthose t ests. However, the next sent ence in the affi davi t st ates thatthe off icer placed the D efen dan t und er arre st for D UI. At 6: 40 p.m. Def endantregi stered a 0.13 on th e Into xime ter 30 00 te st.

Foll owing her ar rest , Defendan t was fi rsttaken byOffi cer Orrto t he Dickson Police D epa rtmen t. There Defendantma de a p hon e call to Joe Fizer, a b ail bondsman. She made arrang ements for Mr. Fi zer t o make herbond and-4-

pickhe r up at th e D icks on Co un ty Ja il in C harl ott e. Defe ndant was t hen tra nsport ed from the D ickso n P olice D epa rtme nt to t he j ai l , ar r i vi ng at8: 00 p. m. Mr. Fizer

was wait ing atthe j ail when she arr iv ed. However, Defendantwas not permitted to be rel eas ed unti l 2: 00 a.m. t he fol lowi ng morning when Mr . Fi zer tookDefe nda nt to m eet he r boyfriend, w ho in turn took De fend ant to her home.

At the tim e of D efen dan t’s arre st, the Dic kso n C ou nty S he riff’s Departmenthad a pol icyof hol ding a defendantwho had been arrested fo r DUI a minimum of si x (6) hours bef ore al lowi ng the def endant t o be rel eased on ba il. Depending upo n the defe nda nt’s leve l of into xi ca tion , he or s he m igh t be he ld longer than the mini mum six(6) hour period. In the words ofSheriffW all, “[t]hose were mini m um tim es . In o the r wo rds , afte r six h ou rs, o n a DU I, if the jailor felt li ke theywere no t m isb eh avin g, th ey c ou ld g et th em bo ok ed in an d th ey c ou ld make bond and lea ve.” Sh eriff W all fu rthe r ela bo rate d th at p ub lic safety was t he “numberone” i ssue whic h led t o the pol icy . Al so, t he di fficulty of hav ing an int oxi cated de fen da nt fin ge rprin ted an d “b oo ke d” w as a co nc ern lea din g to t he policy. Sheri ffW all lat er t esti fi ed duri ng cross- examinat ion by t he Stat e thatthe prima ryreason for t he poli cy was t o keep the de fen da nts from be ing rele as ed in an into xica ted con ditio n w he re d efe nd an ts in DUI cases mightharm themselves or third pers ons .

Defendanttest if ied t hat i n h er opi nion she was not under the infl uence of al cohol while she was bein g inc arce rated on th e nig ht of h er arre st. Th ere is no proofthatDefendantwas unrul y, a busiv e, oruncooperat iv e from the t i me of h er a rres t un til she wa s re lea se d o n b ail. The only proofof her condit ion r eg ardi ng i nt ox i ca t i on wa s t he 0. 13 i nt ox i met err ea di ng at6: 40 p. m.-5- DOUBLE J EOPARDY
On ap pe al, Defendantargues t hat bot h the Tennessee and Unit ed StatesCon st i t ut i on s p r ot ec t a p erso n f r om mu l t i pl e p un i sh men t s f ort he sa me o ff ense. Specif ical ly , i n W hitwe ll v. State , oursupreme courtstat ed, “ the Tennessee and Unite d Stat es const it uti onal provi sions againstdouble j eopardy protectan acc use d from the p eril of both a second puni shment and a second t ri al forthe same offens e.” 520 S.W .2d 33 8, 341 (Ten n. 197 5) (em pha sis sup plied).

Ho weve r, the rece nt ca se o f State v. Jeff erson C. Penningt on , ____ S.W .2d __ __ , No . 01 -S- 01 -96 07 -PB -00 13 3, D avid s on County ( Tenn., at Nashvil le, Sept. 8, 1997) , addressed a f actual sit uati on s imil ar t o the cas e sub judice . In Jeff erson Penni ngton , the de fen da nt w as arre ste d fo r D UI in Davidson Co unty. Pursuantto a pol icyof t he Davidso n Cou nty gen era l sess ions j udges a nd j ud i ci al co mmi ss i on ers, Defen da ntwa s h el d i n c us t od y f orap prox i ma tel y elev en (11) hours pr iorto b ein g a llow ed to m ak e b ail bec aus e he had refus ed to su bm it to a brea th-alcoh ol test. Upo n m otion of de fenda nt, the trial court dismis sed the i ndict ment. Our c ourtaff ir med the judgmentof t he tr ial courtin an opini on wh ere on e ju dg e co nc urre d in res ults on lyand another judge di ssented. The lea d o pin ion in ou r co urt c on clu de d th at fu rthe r pro se cu tio n wou ld violate do ub le jeop ardy princ iples. The supre me court reversed, and i n addressi ng the double jeopardy i ssue stated as fol lows:

In context, double j eopardy v iol ati ons ari se on lywhen an indi vi dual is twice pl aced in jeopardy f or t he same offen se. Cu stom arily, in jury p roc ee din gs , jeo pa rdy a ttac he s w he n th e ju ry is-6- sworn, and in nonj ury proceedings , j eopardy a tt aches when t he fi rst witne ss te stifies [cita tions om itted] . . . . It is well establi shed that j eopardy does n ot at tac h in prelim inary p retrial pr oce edin gs. See United Statesexrel. Rutz v. Levy , 268 U.S . 390 , 45 S . Ct. 51 6, 69 L. Ed . 101 0 (19 25); Coll ins v. Loisel , 262 U.S. 426, 43 S. Ct. 618, 67 L. Ed. 1062 (1923 ). Rathe r, to be p ut i n jeopardy, the def endant must b e “subj ect t o ‘cr iminal prosecut ion’ and put to trial.” Un ited S tates v. Gris anti , 4 F. 3d. 173, 175 (2nd Cir. 1993). The proceeding must be “es se ntia llycrim ina l” and consti tut e an acti on “inten ded to author ize cr iminal punishment to vindicate p ublic justice.” Id . [citation s om itted]. Jeff erson Penni ngton , No. 01 -S-01- 9607-PB-00133, sli p op. At5.

A sti pulat ed factin Jeff erson Penni ngton was th at one ofthe purposes ofthe det enti on poli cy was t o keep thos e who are suspected ofbeing int oxi cated drivers offt he r oa d f ora p er i od oft i me f ol l ow i ng ar r es t . Th e s up r eme cour t con clud ed th is wa s a re m edia l purp ose , not p unitive , and th us th e de fen da nt’s ini ti al app eara nce before the j udici al commissi oner was notan “esse ntially criminal proc eed ing” brou ght to “vindica te pub lic justice.” Id . at 6.

Based upon Sheri ffW all ’s t esti mony regar ding t he purposes of the detent ion, and in l ightof t he de ci sion i n State v. J eff erson Penni ngton , we conclude thatthe pur pose of t he detent ion under the fact s ofthi s case was rem ed ial, not puni ti ve, and did notconsti tut e an essent ial lycri minal proceeding. As a re su lt, the de ten tion did no t viola te a ny d ou ble jeopardy prot ecti ons afforded De fend ant.
DUE PROCESS-7- W hile concl uding in State v. J eff erson Penni ngton thatther e was no vi olat ion of doubl e jeopardy prot ecti ons, our supreme courtsti ll recogni zed that a policyof detai ning su spected drun k drive rs for re fusin g to s ubm it to a tes t to deter mine blo od -alc oh ol c ontentmay, i f puni ti ve, impli cate certai n other consti tut ional protection s. Spe cifically, the courtstat ed, “To punish an i ndiv idual w it hout a prior ad judication o f guilt is a violation of due proce ss.” Jeff erson Pe nn in gton , No. 01-S- 01-9607- PB-00133, sl ip op. At 7 ( cit ing Kennedy v . Mendoza Marti nez , 372 U.S . 144 , 186, 89 S. Ct. 554, 576, 9 L. Ed. 2d 644 (1963 )).
The court also he ld t hat pretr ial detent ion thatis remedial ratherthan pun itive is per missi ble as l ong as the arres tee i s aff orded suffi cien t pr ocedural due process.
In State v. Cool idge , 915 S. W .2d 820 ( Tenn. Cri m. App. 1995) , our court qu ot ed f r om D oe v. N orris , 751 S.W .2d 834, 839 (Tenn. 1988), a case invol ving a due process i ssue, as fol lows: In deter mining whetherthe conf inement i nvol ved . . . is puni shment

. . . [c] ourt s must deci de whetherthe conf inement i s imposed forthe purpose of puni shment or whet her i t i s an inc identof a leg itima te governmental purpose. W here . . . no showing of an ex press i ntent to punish is made . . . “t hat det erminat ion . . . tur n[s] on whether an alternative purpose t o which [the r es tr ict ion] may rat ional lybe connected is as signabl e forit , and wh eth er it a pp ea rs e xce ssiv e in relatio n to th e alte rnative purp ose ass igne d.” Cooli dge , 915 S. W .2d at823.-8- A two-pa rt testwas set fort h in Cooli dge to det ermine whet her pr etri al detent ion q ualifi ed as puni shment: ( 1) whet her t he detent ion ser ved an alternative pu rpo se , an d (2 ) wh eth er d ete ntio n is excessi ve i n rel ati on to t he purpose. 915 S.W .2 d at 824. Detent ion f or t he purpose ofdetox if icat ion may qua lifyas a legitim ate gove rnm ent g oal. Id . at823. The period o f six (6) hours confi nement in j ail fol lowi ng a blood alcohol lev el of 0. 13 (eve n th ou gh the res ult was obtai ned ap pro xim ate ly se ven (7) h ou rs p rior to he r rele as e) is not shown by this record to be exce ssiv e in relat ion t o the st ated pur pose. Underall of t he ci r cu ms tances of thi s case, we agree with t he tri al courtthat Defendant’ s ca s e does not justi fy t he granting ofher motion to di smiss.

W e affirm the jud gm ent o f the trial c ourt.-9- ____________________________________ THO MAS T. W OOD ALL, Judge
CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOSEPH B. JONES, Presi ding Judge

___________________________________ W ILLI AM M. BARKE R, Judge