Cases

State v. Brooks, Slip Copy (2011)

The appellant, Tracy J. Brooks, pled guilty in the McMinn County Circuit court to driving under the influence (DUI) and received a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served as forty-eight hours in jail and the remainder on probation. As a condition of her plea, the appellant reserved a certified question of law, namely whether the police officer had reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

State v. MacKinnon, Slip Copy (2011)

IMPLIED CONSENT Defendant, charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), was convicted by jury in the Circuit Court, Sevier County, of violating the implied consent law. Defendant appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that: [1] authority for determining whether the noncriminal implied consent law was violated was with the trial court, not the jury; [2] jury’s unauthorized determination that defendant violated the noncriminal implied consent law was not rendered harmless by the trial court’s approving the jury’s finding; and [3] defendant waived issue of whether exclusionary rule applied in noncriminal implied consent proceedings. Vacated and remanded.

State v. Coleman, Slip Copy (2009)

The defendant was found guilty following a bench trial of violating the implied consent law. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding him guilty absent a showing by the State that the breathalyzer test was administered in accordance with the standards set forth in State v. Sensing, 843 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn.1992). After review, Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County…, Not Reported in…

The Trial Court granted defendant permission to attend traffic school in lieu of a fine. On appeal, Court of Appeals reversed because State and federal law does not permit diversion for a commercially licensed operator.

State v. Banks, 875 S.W.2d 303 (1993)

Following defendant’s guilty plea to two charges of first-offense driving under influence of intoxicant (DUI), the Criminal Court, Shelby County, entered order requiring issuance of restricted commercial driver’s license to allow defendant to continue his employment as bus driver. State appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that trial court lacked authority to order issuance of restricted commercial driver’s license. Reversed.

State v. Snyder, 835 S.W.2d 30 (1992)

Driver was convicted in the Circuit Court, Carter County, Lynn W. Brown, J., of operating commercial vehicle under influence of intoxicant and possessing alcohol while operating commercial vehicle. Driver appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that impairment of ability to drive is not element of operating commercial vehicle with blood alcohol concentration of .04 or more. Affirmed.

Statutes

Adoption of Federal Regulations

What Constitutes a CMV

Major Disqualifying Offenses

Major Disqualifying Offenses (Alcohol)

Serious Traffic Offenses

Identification of Conviction

Masking Convictions

10-Day Posting Requirement

Other CDL Provisions

Resources

News

Broadcast Library

Traffic Jam: How Commercial Drivers Impact Human Trafficking

Course Description:

Judges across all dockets may encounter trafficking-related cases without recognizing them as such. These cases can appear under the guise of routine traffic violations, civil disputes, or low-level criminal charges, yet they may involve key indicators of exploitation and coercion.

This webcast provides judges with the knowledge to identify and respond to trafficking within the context of commercial transportation. It explores federal and state laws, highlights real-world scenarios, and offers practical guidance for spotting red flags, addressing misconceptions, and supporting victims through informed judicial action.

Understanding the intersection of human trafficking and CMVs is not optional—it is essential. Judicial awareness and leadership play a critical role in disrupting exploitation and advancing justice in every courtroom.

Course Objectives:

After this course, participants will be able to:

• Identify and define the forms and prevalence of human trafficking;
• Develop techniques to respond to human trafficking cases; and
• Understand the unique laws governing CDL holders facing trafficking charges.

Fundamentals of “Masking” and Suspensions for CDL Holders in Traffic and Criminal Courts

Course Description:

The practice of “masking” violations or the unwarranted reduction of charges for Commercial Drivers in Traffic and Criminal Courts across America is fairly common. When CDL drivers are afforded these opportunities, they often lead to less safe roads and highways for all drivers and passengers. Additionally, the likelihood of more crashes involving CDL holders is increased, which often leads to severe injury or death. To combat this challenge, it is necessary for judges, as the guardrails of the judicial system, to be aware of the basic rules which govern CDL holders by reporting convictions and imposing license suspensions where required by law. This course will provide judges the necessary information and tools to identify, address and combat and respond to “masking” when cases appear in the courtroom.

Course Objectives:

After this course, participants will be able to:

  • Identify applicable Federal and state CDL/CMV laws;

  • Determine what constitutes “masking”;

  • Discover the unique definition of a “conviction” under CDL/CMV laws;

  • Summarize the major components related to Access to Justice;

  • Hone techniques designed to improve in-court caseflow management and identify CDL cases with potential masking problems;

  • Balance Procedural Fairness concerns to avoid federal masking violations;

  • Develop ethical and efficient procedures for handling of CDL/CMV cases in their courts.