[dealsgapdragon]

Driving 25 mph in a 35 zone at night is now a crime subject to immediate arrest as a "medical emergency". This was on a downtown 4-lane street, with passing lanes, so the driver wasn't impeding traffic.

So now we can make citizen's arrests of cops perping rolling roadblocks below the 85th-Percentile speed.

State High Court Overturns Hamilton County Case On Slow Driver

The Chattanoogan
June 24, 2008

The Tennessee Supreme Court, in a Hamilton County case, has overturned a ruling involving a slow driver.

Criminal Court Judge Rebecca Stern ruled that the driver of a slow-moving vehicle does not impede traffic unless other traffic is made to come to a stop.

The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

But, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Mickey Barker, the high court said, "We hold that the trial court based its decision on an erroneous interpretation of the statute. Therefore, we reverse the trial court and remand for a new suppression hearing."

Richard Adam Hannah, Larry Darnell Penn and Tracy Lee Ray had been indicted for possession of more than one-half gram of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver and possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. In addition, Hannah was indicted for driving without a valid driver’s license. The defendants filed motions to suppress the evidence.

Joseph Shaw, a patrol officer with the Chattanooga Police Department, testified that on May 11, 2005, at approximately 1 a.m., he observed a dark-colored Nissan Altima traveling southbound in the left lane of Market Street at a speed of approximately 20 miles per hour. While no minimum speed limit was posted, the posted maximum speed limit was 35 miles per hour.

Officer Shaw testified that the Altima’s slow speed was unusual for the area because other automobiles would generally exceed the posted maximum speed limit.

Officer Shaw followed the Altima and observed that it obeyed all of the traffic signals and did not exceed twenty-five miles per hour. Even though the Altima never forced approaching automobiles to completely stop in the roadway, Officer Shaw testified that “most traffic was doing double (the Altima’s) speed. So when [approaching automobiles] would come up behind us they would have to brake fairly quickly and change lanes in order to pass. And there was moderate traffic even for that time of night on that road.”

After following the Altima for approximately 15 to 17 blocks, Officer Shaw initiated a traffic stop.

Judge Stern said she found problems with the traffic stop. The state argued that the police officer’s stop was legal because the driver’s slow speed was impeding traffic in violation of a section of state law which provides:

The high court opinion said, "Reduced speed interrupts the 'normal and reasonable movement of traffic' by blocking or backing up traffic, unless the 'reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law.' Furthermore, while not an exhaustive list, we believe that when a trial court reviews whether a slow driver impeded traffic it should consider how slow the driver’s automobile was traveling, the posted maximum speed limit, the posted minimum speed limit, if any, the effect on traffic, the duration of the effect on traffic, and the normal and reasonable flow of traffic in that area.

"Also, the trial court should consider whether other traffic could safely pass the slow-moving automobile in the right lane as provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-118 (2004).

"Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erroneously interpreted Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-154(a). Furthermore, because the trial court halted the suppression hearing before Officer Shaw finished testifying and did not consider the State’s alternative arguments that Officer Shaw was justified in stopping the defendants’ Altima to ascertain whether the driver was suffering from a medical emergency, we reverse the trial court and remand this matter for further factual and legal findings, including whether Defendant Hannah was impeding traffic, consistent with this opinion."

Note that the cop confessed on the witness stand to breaking exactly the same law he arrested the driver for. This violated Constitutional Equal Protection doctrine under the 14th Amendment.

This insanity is like cops robbing banks to arrest bank robbers, or cops killing innocent people to arrests serial killers.

Full opinion:

State of Tennessee vs. Richard Adam Hannah, Larry Darnell Penn and Tracy Lee Ray

No. E2005-02833-SC-R11-CD

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/...HannahrOPN.pdf

Hamilton County - We granted the State's application for permission to appeal in order to construe Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-154(a) (2004), the impeding traffic statute. The trial court held that the driver of a slow-moving vehicle does not impede traffic, unless other traffic is made to come to a stop. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Upon review, we hold that the trial court based its decision on an erroneous interpretation of the statute. Therefore, we reverse the trial court and remand for a new suppression hearing.