No-refusal checkpoints fail to catch any drunk drivers in Chattanooga region

State troopers arrest 11 for DUI in Chattanooga region on New Year's Eve

The slogan "booze it and lose it" is seen on a car displayed as the Tennessee Highway Patrol in December.
The slogan "booze it and lose it" is seen on a car displayed as the Tennessee Highway Patrol in December.

STATEWIDE DUI ARRESTS BY YEAR

2015: pending2014: 29,5442013: 28,9052012: 32,999Source: Tennessee Bureau of Investigation

State troopers arrested 11 people for driving under the influence on New Year's Eve in the Chattanooga region - but none of the drivers were caught at the one "no-refusal" checkpoint set up in Hamilton County.

The 11 drivers were nabbed between 5 p.m. Thursday and 8 a.m. Friday in the 12-county region the local Tennessee Highway Patrol office covers, Lt. John Harmon said.

Six people were arrested in Hamilton County, two in Bradley County, two in McMinn County and one in Coffee County. Across Tennessee, 65 people were arrested for DUI in that same time period, Harmon said.

But none of the arrestees in the Chattanooga region were stopped at the troopers' sometimes-controversial no-refusal checkpoints. There was one checkpoint set up in Hamilton County on New Year's Eve.

The no-refusal policy, based on a 2012 state law, allows law enforcement to obtain court warrants to draw blood samples from suspected impaired drivers. Troopers must have probable cause and a judge's approval to obtain the warrants and draw the blood.

Before the 2012 law, drivers suspected of DUI could refuse blood tests, but their driver's licenses were immediately suspended.

Opponents of the no-refusal checkpoints see the roadblocks as an invasion of privacy and argue the forced blood draws violate a defendant's right against self-incrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1966 that such blood draws do not violate an individual's constitutional rights.

And in December, the Supreme Court announced it will decide whether states can criminalize a driver's refusal to take an alcohol test even if police have not obtained a search warrant, according to The Associated Press.

The justices agreed to hear three cases challenging laws in Minnesota and North Dakota that make it a crime for people arrested for drunken driving to refuse to take a test that can detect alcohol in blood, breath or urine.

At least a dozen states make it a crime to refuse to consent to warrantless alcohol testing.

Harmon could not say on Friday how many drivers passed through the Hamilton County checkpoint, but confirmed troopers did not draw blood from any drivers at that checkpoint.

The law is in effect 365 days a year, Harmon added, not just during holidays.

"Tomorrow, it's the same thing," he said. "It's for the interest of safety. That's what it's about. We're not just holding you down and getting your blood - that isn't what it is all about."

Contact staff writer Shelly Bradbury at 423-757-6525 or sbradbury@timesfreepress.com with tips or story ideas. Follow @ShellyBradbury on Twitter.

Upcoming Events