A speeding ticket or traffic citation for a CDL driver can have a serious effect on their employment. While a non-CDL driver may be eligible for traffic school to keep a traffic citation off their driving record, there are some limitaitons on what Courts are allowed to do with citations for CDL drivers. 49 CFR § 384.226- Prohibition on masking convictions: The State must not mask, defer imposition of judgment, or allow an individual to enter into a diversion program that would prevent a CLP or CDL holder’s conviction for any violation, in any type of motor vehicle, of a State or local traffic control law (other than parking, vehicle weight, or vehicle defect violations) from appearing on the CDLIS driver record, whether the driver was convicted for an offense committed in the State where the driver is licensed or another State. A CDL driver may appear before a judge who indicates their hands are tied and they have no options but to either find the CDL driver guilty or not guilty. As stated above in the federal anti-masking statute, the Court cannot mask a CDL driver’s traffic conviction, defer judgment, or allow them to enter into a diversion program (such as traffic school). While the Court may be limited in options once there is a conviction (a finding of guilt), the Department of Safety’s website provides additional information on the subject. According to www.tn.gov , a judge MAY downgrade a traffic offense, find the driver not guilty, or plea bargain the charge as long as those actions take place BEFORE a conviction. This does not require the Court to allow plea bargaining or downgrading, but it does provide authority for the Court to rely on should the Court want to assist the CDL holder. If you find yourself in this situation, it may be beneficial for you to provide this authority to the Court, in a tactful way, to educate the Court on additional options the Department of Safety provides. https://www.tn.gov/safety/driver-services/commercial-driver-license/cdlcitation.html
The “Miranda warning” is a statement given by law enforcement to a suspect in custody, informing them of their rights. The warning is derived from the United States Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), which established the requirement for law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights before interrogating the m. The Miranda warning must include the following statements: The right to remain silent Anything said can and will be used against them in court The right to an attorney If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to them If law enforcement fails to give the Miranda warning before interrogating a suspect, any statements made by the suspect may be inadmissible in court. This is because the failure to give the warning violates the suspect’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The legal analysis in cases where the Miranda warning is not given typically centers around whether the suspect was in custody and being interrogated at the time of the statements. If the suspect was not in custody or being interrogated, the Miranda warning is not required. However, if the suspect was in custody and being interrogated, the court will consider whether the Miranda warning was given and, if not, whether the statements made by the suspect were voluntary. In other words, the court will look at whether the suspect made the statements freely and without coercion. Miranda rights may be waived by a suspect if the waiver is made “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). The Supreme Court of Tennessee explains that “voluntarily” under Miranda means that the relinquishment of the right to remain silent “is the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than the product of intimidation, coercion, or deception.” State v. Stephenson, 878 S.W.2d 530 (Tenn. 1994). Additionally, the statements must be made “with full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.” Id. at 544. If the court determines that the statements were involuntary due to the lack of a Miranda warning, then the statements will be suppressed and cannot be used against the suspect in court. This can significantly impact the prosecution’s case and may even result in charges being dropped or reduced. It is important for clients to understand their Miranda rights and the importance of remaining silent when in police custody. Even if the Miranda warning is given, it is always advisable to remain silent and request an attorney. Anything said to law enforcement can be used against the suspect in court, and even innocent statements can be misconstrued or taken out of context. By remaining silent and requesting an attorney, the suspect can ensure that their rights are protected and that any statements made are done so with the advice of counsel. Furthermore, clients should understand that law enforcement may use various tactics to obtain information, including deception or coercion. By remaining silent, the client can avoid inadvertently providing information that may be used against them or falling prey to law enforcement tactics. In conclusion, the Miranda warning is an essential component of the criminal justice system, designed to protect suspects’ constitutional rights. Clients should be aware of their Miranda rights and the importance of remaining silent in police custody. By doing so, they can ensure that their rights are protected and that any statements made are done so with the advice of counsel.
Under TCA 55-10-406 any person driving a motor vehicle in Tennessee is deemed to have given implied consent to a breath test, a blood test, or both to determine the person’s alcohol or drug content of their blood. A refusal to submit to one of these tests is a civil rather than criminal offense. Therefore, drivers cannot be punished with jail time but will face mandatory suspension periods of their driver’s license. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals clarified that “consent” under the implied consent statute is not voluntary consent to search but consent to certain consequences if permission to search is withheld from a driver. State v. Henry, 539 S.W.3d 223, 246 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). Breath and blood tests are treated differently in Tennessee, so there are different standards and procedures prior to administering one of these tests. A breath test may be mandated based on: Driver’s implied consent; Driver’s express consent; A search warrant; Incident to a lawful arrest for a DUI; or An officer having probable cause that a driver caused an accident while DUI, is DUI with a minor under the age of 16, or has a prior DUI conviction. A blood test may be mandated based on: Driver’s express consent to submit to a blood test along with a written waiver; A search warrant; or Without the consent of the driver if exigent circumstances to the search warrant requirement exist. It is important to note that an officer may not rely on the implied consent statute to mandate a blood test in Tennessee. The Tennessee Criminal Court of Appeals held that because of the intrusion into privacy inherent in a forcible blood draw, this search would not be found reasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless performed pursuant to a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Wells, Tenn. Crim App. Lexis 933, at 13 (2014). The implied consent law does not create such an exception and does not satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. State v. Henry, 539 S.W.3d223, 243 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). Therefore, to meet the statutory requirements for implied consent for a blood draw in Tennessee, an officer must: Have probable cause to conduct a traffic stop, inform the motorist of the consequences of refusal under implied consent; and Have the driver sign a standardized waiver developed by the Department of Safety. If the two prongs listed above are not met, the officer must obtain a search warrant or rely on another exception to the warrant requirement to withdraw blood from the motorist. Attached please find the current Consent Waiver used by Tennessee law enforcement. Implied Consent (SF-0388) Rev 7-01-19 Katherine Haggard, Esq. Associate, Freeman & Fuson