More fascism from the Nazi German Queen in the birthplace of Communism at the heart of the New World Odor
"It is extremely easy to beat this type of ticket in court. Your easiest defense is to simply throw the ticket away. If it does not come with a return receipt that requires a signature, there is no proof that you actually got the ticket and they cannot prosecute you on that." -Norman G. Fernandez, attorney at law, free ebook How to Beat a Speeding Ticket - Photo RADAR
Even the most law-abiding driver might feel a shiver down the spine when spotting this speed camera at the roadside.
For as well as detecting speeding, it is packed with gizmos that check number plates to make sure insurance and tax are up to date.
It also measures the distance between vehicles to spot tailgating and takes pictures of the inside of the car – to make sure you are wearing a seat belt.
The latest weapon in speed camera technology can capture footage from 150ft away.
It is the first to detect multiple offences at the same time and is connected to police computers via satellite, so that prosecutions can be started within seconds of any offence.
Development of the system, known as Asset – Advanced Safety and Driver Support for Essential Road Transport – is being funded with around £7million of European money.
More...Speed cameras to be turned back ON in Oxfordshire due to rise in motoring offences
It is undergoing testing in Finland and is expected to be deployed across Europe from 2013, with each unit costing £50,000.
Motoring organisations gave it a mixed reception. AA president Edmund King said: ‘Tailgating is more dangerous in most cases than speeding so I think most motorists would welcome it.
'But it needs to be a safety measure, not a money-making machine.’
Campaign group Speed Cameras Dot Org said the device should not become a replacement for traffic police.
A spokesman said: ‘We cautiously welcome a device that can detect several potential offences, but it remains to be seen how accurate it is and how fairly it will be used.
‘It’s a pity that the main actions that cause the most accidents, namely not paying attention to the road, misjudging distances and other drivers’ intentions, cannot be detected by a device of any sort.
‘More police patrols and better driver education are the only ways to reduce accidents.’
The Asset test project is running until December 2011 with the aim of improving traffic safety.
The ‘Big Brother’-style set-up takes various pictures before filing details back to a central database via a GPS system. The equipment automatically destroys images over a month old and those in which no traffic violation is evident.
Its testing comes at a time when the Government has cut central funding for speed cameras and reduced the road safety budget by £38million.
The Asset camera is being tested by the VTT Technical Research Centre in Finland. It is currently mounted on a trailer but it is eventually expected to be converted to fit inside police vehicles.
Matti Kutila, senior research scientist at VTT, said: ‘The main intention is to support traffic police so that drivers follow traffic rules such as wearing seat belts, keep to the speed limit and maintain sufficient distance to the vehicle in front.
‘This, of course, is beneficial for road safety.’
Britain currently has separate cameras to detect speeding, tax and insurance violations, but Asset is the first to be able to spot a number of offences.
One of the first counties in the country to switch off its speed cameras is to turn them back on again – after speeding soared.
Oxfordshire deactivated its 72 fixed and 89 mobile units on August 1 after the county council withdrew its funding to Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership.
Shortly afterwards the partnership claimed the number of drivers speeding past deactivated cameras had increased by up to 88 per cent.
Yesterday it emerged that the police and council were nearing a deal to turn all the cameras back on.
Handheld device claims to remotely detect the presence of alcohol in a moving vehicle.
Localities may one day issue tickets for the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) by mail. The Russian firm Laser Systems has developed Alcolaser, a device that uses lasers to remotely detect the presence of alcohol vapors in an automobile. The Alcolaser is available in either in the form of a handheld gun the size of a police radar or in a mounted version designed to work from a moving police car.
The device takes about half-a-second to scan an automobile. According to the manufacturer, the laser has a range of 65 feet and can test vehicles moving at up to 75 MPH. Laser Systems claims that Alcolaser can detect amounts as small as a quart of beer or 3.5 ounces of vodka without being fooled by other sources of ethanol that might be present in a passenger compartment.
An individual with a blood alcohol content of 0.10 would on average exhale enough alcohol vapors to bring the level in a car with the windows closed to 3 parts per million within 30 minutes. The level would be lower in a vehicle with the ventilation system active. Alcolaser takes advantage of spectroscopy, through which light hitting a specific type of molecule is scattered in a specific way. The shift in the energy content of the light differs based on the type of molecule hit, allowing one to detect the presence of a particular substance.
The method used would be incapable of distinguishing between a sober driver and a drunk passenger. It would also be fooled by beer spilled in the passenger compartment. Despite the limitations, the device has been demonstrated at a number of international trade shows and the Russian police are reportedly interested in testing the equipment. The firm already supplies a number of products to various branches of the Russian government.
Noise cameras become the latest ticketing technology deployed against motorists in New South Wales, Australia.
State governments across Australia are poised to deploy automated cameras that mail tickets to vehicles considered by a machine to be noisy. The fully automated noise camera systems have been in development since 2005 but are now are active and issuing warning notices in the small New South Wales suburb of Mount Ousley, according to the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) Annual Report. The agency is looking for a regulatory means of making such ticketing solutions more common.
"The RTA is contributing to the development of the 'Planning Guideline for Residential and other Sensitive Building Developments alongside Major Roads,'" the RTA report explains. "This will include requirements to address noise for new residential development along nominated roads and rail corridors.... RTA continues to develop technology in the form of a suitable noise camera to use as an enforcement device."
The fully automated noise analysis system designed by the NSW firm Acoustic Research Laboratories uses a set of microphones and cameras that continuously record and analyze activity on a neighborhood street. A computer program processes the audio data to isolate trigger sounds from general background road noise. This allows the device find opportunities to mail a traffic citation to passing vehicles that exceed a predetermined noise threshold. Once configured, the machine will generate up to 10,000 tickets before the on-board hard drive is filled. A 10-second video and audio clip is stored for each incident for use in court proceedings.
South Australia and Victoria have begun similar programs with each state focusing on the noise of heavy commercial truck compression brakes, an issue designed to court local approval of the ticketing technology.
"In parallel with the development of the acoustic measurement methodology, Transport South Australia has developed camera technology that can be linked with the measurement software," Australia's National Transport Commission reported. "The combination of these systems offers the potential for excessive engine brake noise incidents to be identified and recorded, which may provide a useful tool to enforcement agencies."
The commission approved the regulation against engine compression brakes last November. The ticketing system can also be easily expanded to issue citations for loud subwoofers, noisy exhausts, or even an inopportune honk of the horn.
Tire tread measuring system promises to mail tickets to motorists for tire tread that is a fraction of an inch too short.
Now that speed cameras use is established in Europe and parts of the US, the concept of automated ticketing is beginning to expand far beyond moving violations. Already, automated ticketing machines are deployed in the US to hit vehicles that overstay in a parking spot by a minute or that have excessive tailpipe emissions. The newest addition to this growing list is camera that scans the tires of passing cars and mails tickets if the depth of the tire tread is deficient by a fraction of an inch. Although not currently deployed, the German company ProContour hopes to sell this system to state and local governments looking for a way out of tight budget situations with a positive, pro-safety message.
"Car tires are technically, the number one cause of car accidents in Germany," ProContour states on its website. "An average of four car accidents occur daily with personal injuries as the result of smooth or defective tires."
The company claims its combination of a laser and high-speed camera is capable of taking measurements at 430 million points on a tire each second. As the tire moves, the distance between the camera and the object changes allowing the system to create a three-dimensional profile of the tire. The software can then calculate not just the depth of the tread, but also whether the tire itself was designed for summer or winter use. The manufacturer has tested measurement accuracy at speeds of up to 75 MPH, but it believes the technology should work at even higher speeds.
European Union regulations authorize the imposition of a fine of up to 100 Euro (US $160) whenever the tread depth of one of a vehicle's four tires measures less than 1.6mm (0.06 inches). In Germany, drivers can also be ticketed for using tires that are "unsuitable." This means using a summer tire during the winter season carries a stiff fine -- ProContour hopes that fine will be automated.
Depending on its construction, a balding tire with low tread depth can actually have more grip in dry conditions and is not a safety hazard. That can change if it rains, however. The primary purpose of tire tread is to channel water away from the tire so that it maintains contact with the road. The combination of high water and low tread depth can lead to aquaplaning and loss of vehicle control.
ProContour's system can be used in both fixed and mobile locations and is available in an easy-to-hide configuration.
Fredericksburg, Virginia claims to be the first US city to mail fully automated parking tickets.
A Virginia city founded nearly sixty years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence claims to be "the first locality in the nation" to operate a fully automated parking ticket camera system. Fredericksburg began mailing parking tickets in August 2007 using a mobile van festooned with computer-controlled cameras, laser scanners and a GPS device.
"The deployment of autoChalk offers considerable time-saving benefits as the system only takes about twenty minutes to cover an area downtown," Police Chief David Nye said in a statement. "This will allow the police department to enforce parking restrictions in other under-served locations in the city."
The program succeeded in boosting the number of parking tickets written last year by 19 percent. It works by using a specially equipped van to drive slowly through the downtown area and store precise time, date, license plate and location information for every car it passes on a given street. After making a second pass along the same route, software installed on a laptop computer checks whether any cars have "overstayed" in a space by as little as one second. If so, the van driver does not even leave to place a citation on the alleged violator's windshield -- the software will automatically cause a ticket to be sent to the vehicle's registered owner in the mail.
This results in fewer challenges because most motorists will not be able to remember the circumstances of the citation that arrives weeks later in the mail. It also gives the police department access to a log of the whereabouts of any motorist who may have parked in the historic downtown area.
For now, Fredericksburg is giving only warning notices to first-time violators while residents become accustomed to the idea of automated ticketing. Between August and November last year, one van issued 1889 citations -- equal to the total number issued by human meter maids in the same period. Even with the warnings, the city will easily recover from ticket revenue the $77,600 it spent on the no-bid contract for the autoChalk equipment from Tannery Creek Systems, a Canadian company.
San Francisco, California began mounting automated parking ticket cameras on city buses earlier this year. Parking ticket cameras are now common in the UK.
Why can't all taxpayers use this racetrack? Especially bikers who helped pay for it with the 11,400% increase in tickets on the Dragon? Perhaps a lawsuit is in order...
The Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday approved a request to expand the Blount County Sheriff's Office Driver Training Facility from a district to a regional training center. The property, located on Honeysuckle Road, is zoned suburbanizing.
Being granted the special exception ensures the Sheriff's Office can allow regional agencies to use the facility. Building Commissioner Roger Fields said. “The special exception allows the Driver Training Facility to be used by regional law enforcement agencies and operators of other emergency vehicles.”
The special exception was opposed by Raleigh and Judy Dixon, who live on an adjoining property. The Dixons are involved in a lawsuit against Blount County that claims the property is not properly zoned for the driving track.
“This is not a new development,” attorney Thomas Mabry said. “The zoning has been improperly used since 2006.”
Judy Dixon said the facility is a nuisance that prevents her and her husband from sleeping at night. “It's just unreal. I beg you, please don't let anybody else come back there. We've got enough.”
After the vote, Judy Dixon said, “I am disenheartened and very disappointed in the way the BZA voted. No one on the zoning board, including (Fields) and the Blount County lawyer ... could define district or regional zoning. Without the proper knowledge on the definition of the zoning, how could the whole BZA board vote yes?”
The BZA voted unanimously to approve the special exception with the condition that the Sheriff's Office improve the berm that buffers the Dixons' property from the facility.
At the Blount County Commission Agenda meeting, citizen Judy Dixon made an impassioned plea for some justice in her zoning dispute with the Sheriff. Dixon's home once backed on a pleasant open field, zoned "Surburbanizing", a residential zoning designation.
Then, out of nowhere, without obtaining the required building, zoning, grading or environmental approvals, the Blount County Sheriff build a "driving track" on the land. Before they knew what happened, the Dixons were being treated to flashing lights, squealing tires, sirens and grenades, sometimes late at night.
Then to maximize the disruption to the Dixons quiet retirement, the Sheriff invited 30 other agencies, from as far away as Kingston, to use the facility.
Now the Sheriff has applied for a rezoning of the land to "Regional", which apparently will enable the Sheriff to invite his friends from all over the state and region to come use the Blount County taxpayer-funded facility.
Meanwhile, the Dixons and their neighbors suffer. This is one of many cases where persons connected to the political machine have made a mockery of the county permitting and zoning regulations. If the 'connected few' can ignore our zoning and permit regualtions, what good are they?
Often the only recourse for highhandedness by the County Commission, Planning Commission, or BZA is to sue them. That takes money, nerve, persistence, patience, and "standing" to bring a suit at all. The Blount Excavation/Ridge Rd. travesty, the VJShore/Maple Lane FarmsBZA dispute, and now the Dixons, who as far as I know have not tried to sue. It is too bad that regular folks have to try to enforce the law since the officials will not.
"The Sheriff has done a lot. He has taken a small department and turned it into a large department." He has built a political machine and will bankrupt the county if he has his way.
"Maybe, the area was built without making everyone happy." The question is, was it built legally? If the Dixons don’t get their case dismissed on a “technicality”, a jury will likely find that it wasn’t. Because it wasn’t. "Try, if you will, pulling all support and see what happens the next time there is a break-in, robbery, assault, rape, murder, child abuse, fire, car wreck, etc." Same thing that would happen if the BCSO cut its spending 20%. Unless an officer was actually on the scene before the crime happened (and at that point you’re talking lottery style odds), everything you mention would wind up in the police coming out and writing a report.
I guess Mary3473 sees no reason for the sheriff's department to be bound by the law or for the BZA to follow it in cases where the sheriff's department wants to do something. It would seem appropriate for the law enforcement people to be especially interested in following the law and not to see how far they can push people and the BZA around.
A Blount County Commission meeting was held on September 7 to nominate or confirm more than 40 candidates for the Commissions and Committees needed to make the government function. Unfortunately, aside from four appointments to the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Commissioners were not given any information about experience and qualifications of the nominees or appointees. No business would hire a person for a job, without such information.
Commissioner Jim Folts offered an amendment requesting a resume or similar document on each candidate.
Incredibly, the amendment was voted down. Burchfield, Carver, Caylor, Farmer, French, Greene, Harrison, Hasty, Helton, Kirby, Lail, Lambert, Melton, Moon, Samples and Wright voted NO. Only Commissioner Murrell and Commissioner Folts voted for it. Commissioners voting on important issues without any information, other than directions from the political machine, are the reason this County is in a mess. Hopefully, our Commissioners will begin to think for themselves, before it is too late.
Pair says zoning bans use of land behind house for training
MARYVILLE - Raleigh C. Dixon and his wife, Judy, say sleep is hard to come by when the car tires are screeching like an action movie on the asphalt behind the Honeysuckle Road home they have occupied for three decades.
That's why they're suing the Blount County Sheriff's Office, using zoning regulations as justification for preventing the agency from conducting driving training there.
The suit was filed Thursday in Blount County Chancery Court and also seeks to enjoin the BCSO from conducting a Law Enforcement Training Academy on the site.
The facility is at the end of Honeysuckle Road off County Farm Road near William Blount High School. The area, the Dixons' suit says, is zoned R-1, a rural designation that allows agricultural uses and places fewer restrictions on it than more urban zone classifications.
The suit says that a driving track and law enforcement academy are not among the permitted uses for the property, but the Dixons make no pretense that the underlying reason for the court action is to do anything other than stop the noise that they say keeps them awake and causes "disruption of the quiet enjoyment" of their 7.5, bought-and-paid-for acres.
"We worked hard," Raleigh Dixon said, "and paid off the mortgage," doubling up on the payments to get it paid for before he retired from the Maryville Electrical Department.
"The very last thing we thought we would have to do," he said, is to file a lawsuit to fight what the suit calls increasing "traffic, loud noise and congestion" in "a peaceful neighborhood" during daylight hours and as late as 11:30 p.m.
Sheriff Jim Berrong declined comment on the pending litigation but has said he wants the facility to be a good neighbor to those living nearby.
The suit also seeks termination of the BCSO's Law Enforcement Training Academy on the site, saying it is a "commercial activity" prohibited by the R-1 zoning.
Berrong has said that the academy holds down costs to county taxpayers by making it unnecessary for his trainees to be sent out of town for training and even helps pay for itself by charging other police agencies for sending their officers to Blount County to be trained. But he says there is no profit in the venture and it is not a commercial activity.
A new academy session is due to begin Sept. 1 and last through Nov. 13, according to the suit.
Dixon has a recording he says he made on April 7 at 11:15 p.m. of the screeching tires at the driving track.
The mini-cassette recording was made, he said, on his porch, which is 100 yards from a 10-foot-high berm the county built as a sound deflector. And there is a sizable outbuilding between the house and the berm.
The county has planted hundreds of small trees atop the berm to help absorb the sound, but the trees are still less than knee-high.
In addition to the tire noise, Dixon says some of the cars the BCSO uses either have defective mufflers or no mufflers at all, making the activity on the driving course even more unbearable.
Dixon said Berrong has agreed to do everything in his power to be a good neighbor, but "he wouldn't want this next to his house."
And after the driving sessions, Dixon says, he can hear those at the track "hooting and hollering like kids at recess."
The suit asks the court to declare the activity at the site nonagricultural, make it subject to the county's zoning regulations, prohibit for-profit activity, halt the academy session planned for September and permanently enjoin the Sheriff's Office from using the site as such.
"We are not asking anything unreasonable," he said. "We just want our peace and quiet back."
Comments
I bet the area will be rezoned because of the lawsuit. If BCSO has spent there money they will not walk away. Anyway Dixon might win BUT they may want to move very far away. Most LEO's don't take challenge to there operations lightly.
The primary function of the Training Unit is to plan and coordinate all training that the Sheriff’s Office employees undertake each year. Certified and correction’s officers in Tennessee are required by law to complete 40 hours of training each year to maintain their certification. It is the duty of the training staff to assure that all POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) certified, corrections, and civilian deputies receive this required professional development training.
Officers are trained in a variety of specialized subjects, including domestic violence, child sexual abuse, defensive tactics, officer survival, emergency vehicle operations (EVOC), DUI certification, simunition’s training, instructor development, TASER and chemical weapons certification, firearms qualification, and a variety of other classes related to law enforcement.
Beginning in 2006, the Sheriff’s Office began conducting inservice training for Maryville, Alcoa, and Townsend Police Departments.
The Sheriff’s Office and the Air National Guard continue to work together to upgrade and expand the firing range and training facility, located off County Farm Road in west Blount County. The facility encompasses 33.8 acres.
A five acre driving track was completed in December 2006, and is used for EVOC training.
The Air National Guard built a state-of-the-art ropes course at the training facility in 2003.
Basic Training Academy
The BCSO Basic Law Enforcement Academy began in September 2007 and graduated the inaugural class of 13 recruits in November. The POST approved 11 week academy academy instructs recruits in criminal justice, firearms, emergency vehicle operations, report writing, defensive tactics, basic police tactics, DUI, traffic accident reconstruction, as well as other law enforcement related courses. The academy is scheduled twice a year, and is held at Eagleton Middle School, as well as at the Sheriff’s Office Training Facility in west Blount County.
Training Classes
Below is a link to a list of training classes that are being offered at the Blount County Sheriff's office. If you would like more information about these classes please contact the Training Division, 865-273-5000.
You have worked for an organization for years. One day your boss calls you in. He tells you he has a tape of a conversation where his wife, suspicious about his extracurricular activities, asked you to confirm her suspicions. He tells you that: “your ass is fired, you get out of here”. He then tells you: “I’ll burn your house down, set your dog on fire and there won’t be a member of your family left, do you understand me?” Then he adds “I won’t hire it done, I will do it myself! Do you understand me?” Would you feel that your rights have been violated?
This is the scary picture painted in a recent lawsuit ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of appeals. These threats were not made by some Mafia thug. They were allegedly made by Blount County Sheriff, James Berrong.
Incredibly, the Court of Appeals concluded Berrong’s threats did not rise to a constitutional violation because the threats did not “shock the conscience”. We do not know about the Appeals Court Judges, but these threats surely shock consciences of most of our citizens – especially when the come from the top law enforcement officer in Blount County.
The department is already facing multiple $1,000,000+ lawsuits alleging serious mistreatment of citizens – including a local physician [biker Dr "Doc" Wooten MD was nearly tortured to death by BCSO after his 173 mph speed ticket on the Dragon]. The lack of professionalism at the top of our Sheriff’s Department seems to have the county careening toward disaster.
Our greatest concern is that this court decision will encourage even more threats and intimidation of citizens by the Blount County Sheriff’s Department. Be careful out there – especially of the top dogs in our Sheriff’s department.
"I'll burn your house down, set your dog on fire and there won�t be a member of your family left, do you understand me? I won't hire it done, I will do it myself! Do you understand me?" -Deals Gap Blount County sheriff James B. Wrong, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Nuchols v. Berrong, No. 04-5645, July 11, 2005
Dragonater Note: Sheriff Berrong's family allegedly has a long history of arson, and allegedly murder by arson. Tennessee sheriffs have a long history of arson of businesses that fail to pay the sheriffs' extortion rackets. Tennessee leads the nation in sheriffs arrested and convicted for dope dealing...
Recently, there have been disturbing reports of harassment and threats by some members the Blount County Sheriff’s department against citizens of the county who dare to criticize the department.
The latest example occurred at the January Commission meeting. Ron McTigue, 77 years old, found himself being waved out of the Commission room into the hall by Sheriff James Berrong. The Sheriff told McTigue that if he continued to ask questions about what happened to the 28 Sheriff’s vehicles missing from the recent inventory, that he would sue McTigue. Mr. McTigue, is seriously ill, partly from the lifelong effects from being a Marine fighting in Korea. The cost of drugs for he and his wife leave very little extra money. He was shaken by the Sheriff’s threat, particularly because, just a few months ago, in a similar encounter, the Sheriff ordered McTigue “to be in my office tomorrow at 10am”. McTigue declined the Sheriff’s order. Strangely, a black unmarked car followed McTigue home from the Commission meeting and parked in front of his house for more than four hours. In fear for his safety and the safety of his wife, McTigue sat for the entire time behind his door with a shotgun ready. But McTigue is not about to knuckle under to the Sheriff’s threats. Mr. McTigue says:”I did not get shot at in Korea only to be intimidated by a Sheriff who refuses to answer a simple taxpayer question.”
Sadly, this is not the first time the Sheriff and some members of his department have tried to harass or intimidate citizens. In 2005, the county paid $50,000 of taxpayer money to settle a sexual harassment suit filed by a county employee against the Sheriff.
In an even more serious case, Sheriff James Berrong and the County are being sued for more than a million dollars by an elderly lady, because the Sheriff allegedly told the woman that he would burn her house down, set her dog on fire, and kill everyone in her family.
The Sheriff’s department has also attacked leaders of citizens groups who question the actions of the department. In a recent letter to the editor, the Assistant Deputy Chief for Internal Affairs and Training, (ironically the guy within the department responsible for maintaining standards of professionalism) called the leader of a leading citizens group a “vampire”. His choice of words tells us everything we need to know about his professionalism.
More Sheriff’s harassment was directed at another citizens group when the group placed flyers critical of the Sheriff, but supporting the working-level deputies, on a table designated by the Commission for such materials. One of the Sheriff’s deputies grabbed the flyers off the table, saying “this material don’t need to be here” and threw the flyers in a garbage can. When a member of the citizens group questioned why the deputy did such a thing, the deputy replied: “because I wanted to, and because I can”. The deputy continued, telling the elderly man “you can get it out of the trash can if you want one”. An immediate public complaint was made to the Mayor, who was chairing the meeting. The Mayor said such conduct was unacceptable and promised to deal with the matter like a “Marine drill sergeant”. Weeks later, when questioned about what disciplinary action had been taken, the Mayor said it was “the Sheriff’s problem”. Now, months later, there is no sign that any disciplinary action was taken by Sheriff Berrong.
Even County Commissioners are victims of harassment by the Sheriff and his minions. In one recent case, a Commissioner requested copies of certain expenditures made by the Sheriff’s department. His request was greeted by a letter, from the Assistant Deputy Chief of Internal Affairs and Training, which accused the Commissioner of having “stupid tendencies” and being a “coward”. The Sheriff’s Assistant Deputy Chief went on to say: “You are absolutely scared to death to come to the Sheriff’s Office and meet”. While the Commissioner is not a coward, who could blame him for being reluctant to come to the Sheriff’s office, in view of the harassment and threats recounted here.
There are many good, professional, deputies who work at the Sheriff’s department. They understand that their job is to uphold and enforce the law. Unfortunately, there are also a few people at the department (who are often in senior positions) who don’t seem to take professionalism seriously. They seem to think they are the law. Those people are no better than the thugs they are supposed to be chasing.
Back in January we asked the Commissioners why, according to the State Audit Report, the Sheriff needed 263 vehicles when he only had 268 employees. Since this total employee number included more than 100 jail guards, cafeteria workers, clerical and other workers who have no need for a county vehicle, we observed that the number of vehicles seemed extraordinarily high. We also pointed out that Sullivan county does essentially the same law enforcement job with 130 vehicles.
Our confusion, turned to serious concern when the Sheriff told the News Sentinel, in a January 20th article, that: “the department has a maximum of about 180 vehicles”. Repeated requests to the County Finance Department for an explanation of the difference in Audit Report number and the Sheriff’s number went unanswered. In March, the Mayor joined the fray to “set the record straight”, but only added to the confusion.
At the end of February, we wrote a letter to the State Comptroller requesting help from the state auditors in getting to the bottom of this problem. At our subsequent meetings, we requested that our members also write to the Comptroller requesting his help. Your letters worked.
The state auditor arrived in the County a few weeks ago. That is the good news.
The bad news, according to our sources, is the auditor found that the Sheriff has 239 vehicles, including 24 additional cars he bought last January. The county books said he had 263 plus 24, or a total of 287 vehicles. The auditor was able to find only 239. What happened to the other 48 vehicles? We have called the county Finance Director, David Bennett, several times seeking a detailed reconciliation of the disposition of every one of these 48 missing vehicles. Mr. Bennett has not returned our calls.
Our sources tell us the political “spin” that will be put on this problem is that paperwork problems are to blame. That is a lot of spin. Yes, a paperwork problem might explain one or two missing vehicles – but not a whole parking lot full of vehicles. That takes a major breakdown of the Sheriff’s office and county financial control systems. That also may be one reason why law enforcement in Blount county costs 39% more per person than in Sullivan county.
So where are we now? The Audit report said the Sheriff should have 287 vehicles (263 plus the 24 new ones). The Sheriff said we have no more than 180. The latest auditor says the Sheriff has 239. And, no one is answering questions about the missing 48 vehicles.
But the Sheriff wants the taxpayers to support a tax increase, so that he can have even more money to spend next year. Does this make sense to you?
THE DRAGONATER WINS IN TRAFFIC COURT AT DEALS GAP, RAISES SPEED LIMIT TO 65 MPH ON THE DRAGON - NOLLE PROSEQUI BY BLOUNT COUNTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. NO TESTIMONY, HEARING NOR TRIAL WHATSOEVER. 60 MPH SPEEDING TICKET DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, COSTS PAID BY THE STATE, IN BLOUNT COUNTY GENERAL SESSIONS COURT WITH JUDGE BREWER. THP TROOPER RANDALL HUCKEBY ADMITTED ON VIDEOTAPE DURING TRAFFIC STOP THAT ALL SPEEDING TICKETS NORTHBOUND ON US129 AT MILE MARKER 0.5 ARE FEDERAL JURISDICTION, NOT STATE JURISDICTION (VIDEO BY THE DRAGONATER). HUCKEBY WAS ALSO CAUGHT ON VIDEO SPEEDING AT 60 MPH ON THE DRAGON, WITHOUT THE MANDATORY EMERGENCY LIGHTS AND SIREN REQUIRED FOR IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION (VIDEO BY THE DRAGONATER). TDOT ADMITTED IN WRITING THAT THE MANDATORY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SURVEY SPEED AUDIT WAS NEVER PERFORMED, IN VIOLATION OF TN CODE, THUS THE POSTED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON THE DRAGON REVERTS TO THE DEFAULT 65 MPH IN TN CODE. THE DRAGONATER ALSO MADE VIDEO OF TROOPER HUCKEBY SPEEDING UP TO 60 MPH ON THE DRAGON IN A 30 MPH ZONE, WITHOUT MANDATORY EMERGENCY LIGHTS NOR SIREN, IN VIOLATION OF TN CODE, AND PERJURY IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE, WHICH SHOWED HIS $100,000+ SALARY. 2007 TDOT SAFETY AUDIT REPORT CONFESSED THAT THP'S JOB IS TO BAN ALL COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES ON THE DRAGON, SO THP TICKETS INCREASED 11,400% IN BLOUNT COUNTY. THP'S STALKER RADAR OPERATOR MANUAL CONFESSED THAT RADAR CANNOT MEASURE THE SPEED OF VEHICLES WITHIN 18 MPH OF ACTUAL SPEED. WATCH THIS SPACE FOR FULL EVIDENCE FILE. UPDATE 7 MARCH 2011
COP. 2. to steal; filch. 3. to buy (narcotics). 4. cop out, a. to avoid one's responsibility, the fulfillment of a promise, etc.; renege; back out. 5. cop a plea, a. to plead guilty or confess in return for receiving a lighter sentence. b. to plead guilty to a lesser charge; plea-bargain. -Random House Unabridged Dictionary
Good to see the ETR Police Mods have banned every red-blood American who dares fight a traffic ticket in Blount County. Except for Wolfman, who hired a hired gun to defeat a bogus "reckless driving" ticket, since crossing a centerline in a Goldwing does not meet the "essential elements" for RD (see TN Code below). But Wolf does an exceptional job of keeping his advice to himself, so no ETR ban for Mr PokerFace.
And THP loves drivers to suck their dicks during traffic stops...ask Barbie Cummings.
Every speed ticket at 30 mpg over the posted limit is prosecuted as "reckless driving", though this charge does not meet the "essential elements" under TN Code. RD qualifies for a permanant ban of driver license under the TN Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender Act. Typical ticket cost to plead guilty to the crime of speeding on the Dragon is $250.
TN Code 55-10-205. Reckless driving.
(a) Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property commits reckless driving.
(b) A person commits an offense of reckless driving who drives a motorcycle with the front tire raised off the ground in willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property on any public street, highway, alley, parking lot, or driveway, or on the premises of any shopping center, trailer park, apartment house complex, or any other premises that are generally frequented by the public at large; provided, that the offense of reckless driving for driving a motorcycle with the front tire raised off the ground shall not be applicable to persons riding in a parade, at a speed not to exceed thirty miles per hour (30 mph), if the person is eighteen (18) years of age or older.
(c) (1) Any motor vehicle operator who knowingly ignores a clearly visible and adequate flood warning sign or barricade and drives into a road area that is actually flooded commits reckless driving. In addition to the penalties imposed pursuant to subsection (d), the court may order the operator to pay restitution to defray the taxpayer cost of any rescue efforts related to such violation.
(2) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section, which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that the operator's driving through the flood warning sign or barricade was necessitated by a bona fide emergency.
(3) This subsection (c) shall not apply to an emergency vehicle. “Emergency vehicle” means a vehicle of a governmental department or public service corporation when responding to any emergency, or any vehicle of a police or fire department, or any ambulance.
(d) A violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor.
Reckless driving is a very serious criminal offense, with six months in jail and a $500 fine, plus court costs.
The Dragonater has been posting for years the fact of law that a winning defense to speeding and RD on the Dragon is the fact that the 30 mph speed limit is invalid on the Dragon. This is according to USDOT, TN Code and a court order by TN Supreme Court Judge Sharon Lee (The Dragonater's cousin who threatens to sue for mentioning that fact).
Mere speeding tickets are only 30 days in jail as a "small offense" criminal misdemeanor.
Why fight a ticket, when it's easier to plead guilty and pay $100s for a crime that stays on your record FOREVER? Paying for a bogus "driving school" does nothing to educate you. But fighting your ticket is a free "law school". Speeding tickets are the easiest of all lawsuits to win, once you get mad enough to want to learn how to do it.
If you're going to pay your hard-earned money, you might as well LEARN something, which can only be done by investing in your own law library. The National Motorists Association has a Ticket Defense Kit, which includes NOLO's excellent book written by lawyers for pro se's. NMA are those nice folks who got the 55 mph national speed limit repealed. NMA will pay your speeding ticket if you lose, or pay you $5,000 to win.
Not all traffic offenses are as simple as a ticket. Sometimes a traffic offense can turn into a permanent mark on your record. A traffic citation for reckless driving is a criminal charge. Even though you may not have been arrested, handcuffed, and brought to jail, a ticket for reckless driving in Tennessee has the same seriousness as any misdemeanor criminal offense.
It may be that you were in a rush due to an emergency or perhaps you didn’t realize how fast you were going. Regardless of the reason, you got pulled over and charged with reckless driving. You may have even gone to jail.
You also may strongly feel you did nothing wrong. The police often make mistakes in charging people with these offenses. And some of the elements of a reckless driving offense are purely subjective. We can challenge the officer’s statements in court, and establish that he could have been mistaken about what happened. In a criminal case, reasonable doubt is the standard that must be met, and we are prepared to fight all the alleged evidence against you to keep your record clean.
Chances are this is your first reckless driving charge and you are probably unsure of what to expect. Rest assured that is what an experienced attorney is for, to anticipate your questions and work to get you the best possible outcome on your day in court.
If this isn’t your first charge, however, you should know that you may be facing much harsher penalties this time around. Tennessee takes repeat traffic offenders very seriously and you need a qualified defense lawyer behind you to support you during this time. We know Tennessee traffic laws and criminal courts. Please contact us right away to find out what we can do to help you.
What is Reckless Driving?
Under Tennessee criminal traffic laws, you may be charged with reckless driving if there is probable cause to believe that you drive “in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property”. This could mean that you were swerving, following too closely, speeding, or driving in any manner that showed you did not care about the safety of other people or property.
Driving 30mph over the posted speed limit is considered a reckless driving charge under Tennessee law.
There are a variety of other specific statutes that are explicitly in the law (such as riding a motorcycle with one wheel off the ground aka wheelie) that will get you a criminal reckless driving citation. But for the most part, a reckless driving charge is a subjective call by the police officer who pulled you over.
Reckless driving is a Class B misdemeanor and is punishable by up to 6 months in jail and fines up to $500.
Ref: TCA 55-10-205
Related Tennessee Criminal Traffic Charges
Drag Racing
If you are involved in any street racing or speed contest you may be charged with drag racing. With the risk of injuries and accidents so high in racing, Tennessee judges really crack down on those who are convicted of this criminal traffic offense.
Drag racing is also a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail and fines up to $500.
If someone is hurt in the commission of this offense you may also face assault charges.
Ref: TCA 55-10-502
Tennessee Habitual Offenders – Traffic
If this offense isn’t the first one on your record, your potential sentence is multiplied. If you have 3 or more of the following convictions within the past five years you may face prosecution under the Tennessee Habitual Offender Act.
•Reckless driving •Vehicular Assault •DWI/DUI •Drag Racing •Evading arrest
If you are convicted under the Habitual Offender Act you will face permanent revocation of your driving privileges.
Ref: TCA 55-10
Free Consultation on Tennessee Criminal Traffic Charges
If you are accused of reckless driving, or any other traffic or criminal offense, please contact our Tennessee defense lawyers for information on exactly how we would fight these charges in court. It may be possible to get criminal charges reduced to a non-criminal ticket, saving you serious fines, and even more important, keeping your record clean.
Call or contact us today to find out how we can help.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), it is unlawful for any person to operate or drive a motor vehicle upon any highway or public road of this state in excess of sixty-five miles per hour (65 mph).
(b) “Truck,” as used in this section, means any motor vehicle of one and one-half (1 ½) ton rated capacity or more.
(c) On all controlled-access highways with four (4) or more lanes, which are designated as being on the state system of highways or the state system of interstate highways, it is unlawful for any person to operate or drive a motor vehicle or a truck at a rate of speed in excess of seventy miles per hour (70 mph). In the left-hand lane of all controlled-access highways with four (4) or more lanes, which are designated as being on the state system of highways or the state system of interstate highways, it is unlawful for any person to operate or drive a motor vehicle at a rate of speed less than fifty-five miles per hour (55 mph).
(d) (1) (A) Except as provided for certain counties in subdivision (d)(2), counties and municipalities are authorized to establish special speed limits upon any highway or public road of this state within their jurisdiction, except at school entrances and exits to and from controlled access highways on the system of state highways, which is adjacent to school grounds that are devoted primarily to normal school day activity. Such speed limit shall be enacted based on an engineering investigation, shall not be less than fifteen miles per hour (15 mph) and shall be in effect only when proper signs are posted with a warning flasher or flashers in operation and only while children are actually present.
(B) In any county or municipality where the local legislative body does not establish special speed limits as provided for above, any person who shall drive at a speed exceeding fifteen miles per hour (15 mph) when passing a school during a recess period when a warning flasher or flashers are in operation, or during a period of ninety (90) minutes before the opening hour of a school or a period of ninety (90) minutes after the closing hour of a school, while children are actually going to or leaving school, shall be prima facie guilty of reckless driving.
(C) The department of transportation has the authority to establish such special speed limits at school entrances and exits to and from controlled access highways on the system of state highways.
(2) In counties of not less than forty-three thousand seven hundred (43,700) nor more than forty-three thousand eight hundred (43,800) and counties of not less than one hundred forty-three thousand (143,000) nor more than one hundred forty-five thousand (145,000) and counties of not less than four hundred seventy-seven thousand eight hundred (477,800) nor more than four hundred seventy-seven thousand nine hundred (477,900), according to the 1980 federal census or any subsequent federal census, counties and municipalities are authorized to establish special speed limits upon any highway or public road of this state within their jurisdiction, except at school entrances and exits to and from controlled access highways on the system of state highways, which is adjacent to or within one-fourth (¼) mile of school grounds that are devoted to normal school day activities. Such speed limit shall be enacted based on an engineering investigation and shall not be less than fifteen miles per hour (15 mph) and shall be in effect only when proper signs are posted with a warning flasher or flashers in operation. In any county or municipality where the local legislative body does not establish special speed limits as provided for above, any person who drives at a speed exceeding fifteen miles per hour (15 mph) when passing a school during a recess period when a warning flasher or flashers are in operation, or during a period of forty (40) minutes before the opening hour of a school or a period of forty (40) minutes after the closing hour of a school, while children are actually going to or leaving school, is prima facie guilty of reckless driving. The department of transportation has the authority to establish such special speed limits at school entrances and exits to and from controlled access highways on the system of state highways.
(e) (1) The fees of sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and other police officers, other than salaried officers, for making arrests for violations of the speed restrictions of this chapter, shall be one dollar ($1.00).
(2) The reference to sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and other police officers in subdivision (e)(1) also includes constables in counties of this state having a population of:
Click to view table. [SEE BELOW]
according to the 1960 federal census or any subsequent federal census, and Fentress and Hamblen Counties.
(f) (1) (A) Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, the department is authorized to lower the speed limits prescribed in this section, and on the state system of roads and highways, as it deems appropriate due to concerns regarding the roadway, traffic, or other conditions. This authorization to reduce the speed limits set by this section shall be in addition to the authority conveyed by § 55-8-153.
(B) When the department determines that it is necessary to reduce the speed limits set in subsection (a), the commissioner shall so indicate the reduced speed limit via a letter of policy statement, and the commissioner shall cause signs indicating the new speed limit to be erected.
(C) Subject to § 55-8-153(c), the municipalities of the state are authorized to set speed limits on the public roads and streets within their jurisdictions that are not a part of the interstate and national defense highway system nor any access controlled highway on the state road and highway system. In addition, the counties of this state are authorized to set speed limits on the public roads and highways within their jurisdiction that are not a part of the interstate or state highway system. The speed limits for both municipalities and counties shall not exceed fifty-five miles per hour (55 mph).
(2) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, during the period in which this subsection (f) is in effect, any person who is arrested or receives a traffic citation for driving or operating a motor vehicle in excess of fifty-five miles per hour (55 mph) but less than seventy-five miles per hour (75 mph) on a highway of the interstate and defense highway system or a four-lane controlled-access highway which are federal or state highways, or in excess of fifty-five miles per hour (55 mph) or less than sixty-five miles per hour (65 mph) on a highway or road which has an existing speed limit of sixty-five miles per hour (65 mph) as of March 1, 1974, shall be charged with speeding and upon conviction shall not be fined more than the maximum fine nor less than the minimum fine for speeding as provided by law for that violation, nor shall any costs be imposed or assessed against the person. Costs shall be imposed in such cases should the person fail to appear or answer the traffic citation as required by law. The conviction shall not be reported to the department of safety under the provisions of §§ 55-10-306 and 55-12-115. Such person shall not be required to attend driver education course as provided in § 55-10-301. The conviction for speeding shall not result in suspension or revocation of operator's or chauffeur's license unless the excess speed constitutes reckless driving, as set out herein. This subsection (f) shall not apply to trucks as defined in subsection (b) when traveling in excess of sixty-five miles per hour (65 mph) on all highways of the interstate and defense highway system and four-laned controlled-access highways, which are federal or state routes of this state or when traveling in excess of fifty-five miles per hour (55 mph) on any other highways of this state. A violation of this subsection (f) is a Class C misdemeanor. However, notwithstanding any law to the contrary, a violation of the reduced speed limits set by the department of transportation, pursuant to § 55-8-153, is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by fine only, when employees of the department or construction workers are present. The amount of the fine imposed pursuant to § 55-8-153 shall not be less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500). Notwithstanding any provision of this subsection (f) to the contrary, no provision of this subsection (f), nor of § 55-8-153, shall be construed so as to prevent the entry of a suspended sentence upon the conviction of a defendant for the first violation of the enhanced penalties provided for when the violation occurs within a work zone and when employees of the department of transportation or construction workers are present and when the trier of fact determines that extraordinary circumstances lead to the violation.
(g) (1) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any county having a population of not less than sixty-seven thousand five hundred (67,500) nor more than sixty-seven thousand six hundred (67,600), according to the 1980 federal census or any subsequent federal census may assess any person who is arrested or receives a traffic citation for driving or operating a motor vehicle in excess of the posted speed limits an additional fine of five dollars ($5.00). This fine shall be in addition to any fine assessed under this or any other applicable section.
(2) Fines collected pursuant to subdivision (g)(1) shall be placed in a fund to be established by such county. The fund shall be for the sole purpose of erecting and maintaining highway signs.
(3) This subsection (g) shall have no effect unless it is approved by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the legislative body of any county to which it may apply. Its approval or nonapproval shall be proclaimed by the presiding officer of the county legislative body and certified by the presiding officer to the secretary of state.
(h) Notwithstanding any law or regulation to the contrary, only the department of transportation has the authority to set speed limits on access-controlled roadways designated as being on the state system of highways and on roadways designated as being on the state system of interstate highways.
TABLE COUNTY POPULATION
[must be compared to 1980 Census to decipher the Secret Code]
(a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
(b) Whenever the department of transportation or a local authority within its respective jurisdiction determines on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that slow speeds on any part of a highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the department or local authority may determine and declare a minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
(c) Wherever there exists, at or near the top of any hill or grade, a turnout, passing bay or parking area adjacent to and to the right of any traffic lane of any state or federal highway within the state, any person driving or operating a truck or other slow-moving vehicle upon such traffic lane shall drive the truck or other slow-moving vehicle into and stop the same upon the turnout, passing bay or parking area and permit faster-moving vehicles following the truck or other slow-moving vehicle whose progress is being retarded to pass; provided, that the turnout, passing bay or parking area is marked by a traffic sign.
(d) A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
TN Code 55-8-153. Establishment of speed zones.
(a) The department of transportation is empowered to lower the speed limits prescribed in § 55-8-152 in business, urban or residential districts, or at any congested area, dangerous intersection or whenever and wherever the department shall determine, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, that the public safety requires a lower speed limit.
(b) Appropriate signs giving notice of the lower speed limit shall be erected by the department at such places or put on the highway where the prescribed speed limits are effective.
(c) (1) (A) The legislative authorities of municipalities shall possess the power to prescribe lower speed limits on highways designated as state highways in their respective jurisdictions when, on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, it is shown that the public safety requires a lower speed limit.
(B) Engineering and traffic investigations used to establish special speed zone locations and speed limits by municipalities on state highways shall be made in accordance with established traffic engineering practices and in a manner that conforms to the Tennessee manual on uniform traffic control devices (MUTCD). The investigations shall be documented and documentation shall be maintained by the jurisdiction performing or sponsoring the investigation.
(C) All signs, signals and other forms of public notification of the speed limits, road hazards and other traffic conditions shall comply with the MUTCD.
(2) The legislative bodies of municipalities shall also possess the power to prescribe lower speed limits within certain areas or zones, or on designated highways, avenues or streets that are not designated as state highways in their respective jurisdictions, and to erect appropriate signs and traffic signals.
(d) The legislative body of any county, except the legislative bodies of any counties having a commission form of government, has the power to prescribe such lower speed limits as it may deem appropriate on any road being maintained by the county and shall erect appropriate signs and traffic signals. In those counties having a commission form of government, the board of commissioners has the power prescribed in this section.
(e) A violation of the speed limits established by the department pursuant to subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by fine only, when employees of the department or construction workers are present. The department, or its agents, are directed to indicate the presence of workers or department employees with signs with flashing amber lights; provided, that this penalty is applicable in highway construction zones only to those speeding violations that have been detected by radar, infrared or similar detection devices. The amount of the fine imposed pursuant to subsection (a) for violations that occur in work zones where the speed limits have been reduced by the department and when employees of the department or construction workers are present shall be not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
TN Code 55-10-306. Record of traffic cases — Report of convictions to department.
[Amended effective January 1, 2011. See the Compiler's Notes.]
(a) Every magistrate or judge of a court shall keep or cause to be kept a record of every traffic complaint, warrant, traffic citation or other legal form of traffic charge deposited with or presented to the court or the traffic violations bureau of its jurisdiction, and shall keep a record of every official action by the court or the traffic violations bureau of its jurisdiction in reference thereto, including, but not limited to, a record of every conviction, forfeiture of bail, judgment of acquittal and the amount of fine or forfeiture resulting from every traffic complaint, warrant, or citation deposited with or presented to the court or traffic violations bureau.
(b) [Amended effective January 1, 2011. See the Compiler’s Notes.]
(1) Except as provided by § 55-50-409, within thirty (30) days after the conviction or forfeiture of bail of a person upon a charge of violating any provision of chapter 8, parts 1-5 of this chapter and § 55-12-139 or other law regulating the operation of vehicles on highways, every such magistrate or judge of the court or clerk of the court of record in which the conviction was had or bail was forfeited shall prepare and immediately forward to the department an abstract of the record of the court covering the case in which the person was so convicted or forfeited bail, which abstract must be certified by the person so required to prepare the same to be true and correct. Report need not be made of any conviction involving the illegal parking or standing of a vehicle.
(2) Upon receipt of the fee of sixty-five dollars ($65.00) as specified in § 55-12-129, the commissioner shall make a payment of ten dollars ($10.00) for the furnishing of a completed report of a conviction resulting in suspension or revocation, including forfeiture of bail not vacated or payment of a fine or penalty, for one (1) or more of the offenses of reckless driving, driving while intoxicated or drugged, drag racing, driving while unlicensed, driving on a revoked or suspended license, driving an unregistered vehicle, driving a vehicle with revoked registration, failing to stop after a traffic accident, or vehicular homicide.
[Amended effective January 1, 2011. See the Compiler's Notes.]
(c) The abstract must be made on a form furnished by the commissioner and shall include the following information:
(1) Driver's first name, middle name or middle initial, last name, and residence address;
(2) Driver's date of birth;
(3) Driver license number, class of license, and state of issuance;
(4) A statement as to whether or not the license is a commercial driver license;
(5) The license plate number, year, and state of issuance of the vehicle involved;
(6) A statement as to whether or not the offense was committed in a commercial motor vehicle;
(7) A statement as to whether or not the vehicle was transporting hazardous materials requiring placards;
(8) A statement as to whether or not the vehicle could transport sixteen (16) or more passengers;
(9) The date the offense occurred;
(10) The offense the driver was charged with;
(11) The date of the conviction;
(12) The violation of which the person was convicted;
(13) The plea, the judgment, or whether bail was forfeited;
(14) The number of the offense (e.g., 1st offense, 2nd offense);
(15) The blood alcohol level of the person, if convicted of a violation of § 39-13-106, § 39-13-213, § 55-10-401 or § 55-50-405;
(16) The amount of any fine or costs assessed for the violation;
(17) Whether a driver education or improvement course was completed and the date of completion of the course, if eligible under § 55-10-301;
(18) The name of the arresting agency;
(19) The name of the county and court in which the conviction occurred; and
(20) Whether or not there was in effect at the time of the violation an automobile liability policy or bond with respect to the operation of the motor vehicle involved.
(d) Every court of record shall also forward a like report to the department upon the conviction of any person of manslaughter or other felony in the commission of which a vehicle was used.
(e) The department shall keep all abstracts received under this section at its main office and the same shall be open to public inspection during reasonable business hours.
(f) (1) The administrative office of the courts, in conjunction with the department of safety, shall, on an annual basis, provide information and training to the clerks of court concerning the importance and necessity of preparing and forwarding to the department of safety the abstract forms for the convictions required by this section.
(2) The training and information required by this subsection (f) is not required to take the same form every year; provided, that the information is conveyed in a manner designed to be viewed, understood and retained by the clerks. The information may be conveyed one year by a training session at the annual court clerks conference and another year may be conveyed by mailing, e-mail or telephone.
(3) Any such training shall also include the effect and consequences of any changes in the abstract reporting requirements that may result from changes in state and federal law.
(4) The training and information distribution required by this subsection (f) shall apply to all clerks of court having original jurisdiction over traffic offenses, including municipal court clerks.
TN Code 55-10-301. Penalty for violations of chapters 8 and 9 and parts 1-5 of this chapter.
(a) Any person violating any of the provisions of chapters 8 and 9 of this title and parts 1-5 of this chapter where a penalty is not specifically prescribed commits a Class C misdemeanor.
(b) (1) Any person violating any of the provisions of chapters 8 and 9 of this title and parts 1-5 of this chapter may be required, at the discretion of the court, to attend a driver education course approved by the department of safety in addition to or in lieu of any portion of other penalty imposed; provided, that the course is approved by the department, it may be operated and conducted by a:
(A) County, municipality or other entity of local government;
(B) Nonprofit organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3); or
(C) Private entity, provided the entity meets all of the requirements of § 40-35-302(g) for private entities providing misdemeanor probation supervision services.
(2) A reasonable fee between fifty dollars ($50.00) and one hundred seventy-five dollars ($175) may be assessed for the driver education or driver improvement course; provided, that no one shall be refused admittance for inability to pay. This fee shall apply only to driver improvement courses that may be required pursuant to this section, and shall not apply to any program offered pursuant to the provisions of title 49, chapter 1, or to any other driving instruction school.
(3) By operating a driver education or improvement course pursuant to the provisions of this subsection (b), the entity operating or conducting the course consents to the inspection of all records concerning the course by the department of safety; provided, that inspection made pursuant to this subdivision (b)(3) shall not preclude inspection of any records pursuant to any other provision of law.
(4) Each court clerk shall provide a list of approved entities in the county to any person ordered to attend a driver education or improvement course.
(5) Upon certification to the court clerk that a court ordered driver education or improvement course has been completed, the court clerk shall report the completion to the department of safety. The report shall be accomplished on the abstract of record of the court referenced in § 55-10-306.
(c) Subsection (b) shall not apply to any person who holds a Class A, B, or C license and is charged with any violation, except a parking violation, in any type of motor vehicle.
(d) Subsection (b) shall not apply to any person who holds any class of driver license and who is charged with any violation, except a parking violation, while operating a commercial motor vehicle.
The Driver Improvement Section of the Tennessee Department of Safety was established to monitor the driving records of Tennessee drivers. Drivers that accumulate twelve (12) or more points on their driving record within any 12-month period are sent a notice of proposed suspension and given an opportunity to attend an administrative hearing. If they fail to request a hearing, their driving privileges are suspended for a period of six to 12 months. In most cases, when a driver requests a hearing, they are given the opportunity to attend a defensive driving class in lieu of suspension or a reduction of suspension time. Locate a Tennessee Department of Safety approved Defensive Driving School.
Juvenile Points System
Drivers less than eighteen (18) years of age that accumulate six (6) or more points on their driving record within any twelve (12) month period are sent a notice of proposed suspension from the Department of Safety and are placed in the Driver Improvement Program. The driver will be required to attend an administrative hearing, with their parent or guardian present, to discuss the points assigned to their driving record. Certain actions could be imposed based on the outcome of the hearing and the number of points accumulated on the driver's record.
•Obtain a Driver Improvement Restricted Application Form from the Hearing Officer on date of hearing, or download an application request form. All information on form must be completed. •Submit completed form to Driver Improvement Section, 1150 Foster Avenue, Nashville, TN 37243 for approval. Driver Improvement will return the application either approved or denied. •Obtain SR-22 from liability insurance company. •Present approved application form, SR-22 form, and driver license fee to Driver License Examiner and pass driver license examination.
Tickets and Court Abstractions where speed not indicated on source documents 3 Speeding 1 through 5 mph in excess of speed zone 1 Speeding 6 through 15 mph in excess of speed zone 3 Speeding 16 through 25 mph in excess of speed zone 4 Speeding 26 through 35 mph in excess of speed zone 5 Speeding 36 through 45 mph in excess of speed zone 6 Speeding 46 mph and above in excess of speed zone 8 Reckless Driving 6 Signs and control devices - Failing to obey traffic instructions 4 Improper passing - passing where prohibited 4 Wrong way, side or direction 4 Following improperly 3 Failing to yield the right-of-way 4 Making improper turn 4 Violation of driver license or certificate restrictions 6 Reckless endangerment by vehicle, misdemeanor 8 Miscellaneous traffic violations failing to maintain control, improper control, etc., or any offense involving the operation of a motor vehicle not herein specified 3 Leaving the scene of an accident (property damage only) 5 Failure to report an accident (property damage only) 4 Failure to yield to emergency vehicles 6 Failure to stop at railroad crossing 6
Air Schedule (updated 10/25/2010) Episode 1: October 12 - Midnight EST, 9:00PM PST Episode 2: October 19 - Midnight EST, 9:00PM PST Episode 3: October 26 - Midnight EST, 9:00PM PST Episode 4: November 2 - 12:30AM EST, 9:30PM PST Episode 5: November 9 - Midnight EST, 9:00PM PST Episode 6: November 16 - 1:30AM EST, 9:30PM PST
In the mid 90s stunt riding emerged as an aggressive street phenomenon. In 2006 the XDL Championship Series was born. XDL has vaulted itself into the ranks of the fastest-growing action sports in America, highlighted by its first demonstration in the 2010 Summer X Games. Inside XDL is a behind the scenes look at the 2010 season as our cameras follow the top contenders in their chase for the national championship.
Pirate News TV star David Boyd survived severing his nutsac: in Knoxville to go Pro at XDL in Nashville:
Throttle Nation, the best motorcycle magazine on the planet, is replacing the bankrupt 2-Wheel Tuner, poaches bikerbabe editor Beth Dolgner to give We The People what We want -- The Dragonater!
The Dragonater (far right) posing with 2010 XDL Champion porn kingpin Bill Dixon at King of the South 2010 in downtown Seymour TN
The County has stopped putting the e-mail address on the County Commission web site. In response to your requests, we are listing them below. PLEASE USE THEM TO MAKE YOUR FEELINGS KNOWN.
Tonya Burchfield tonyab@blounttn.org
Tab Burkhalter burkhalter.tab@gmail.com
Rick Carver rcarver@blounttn.org
Mike Caylor bmcaylor@ci.maryville.tn.us
Jim Folts jfolts@blounttn.org
Gary Framer farmerg@blountk12.org
Ron French rfrench@blounttn.org
Roy Gamble rgamble4012@yahoo.com
Tom Greene tom.greene@flec.org
Brad Harrison laharrison@ftb.com
Mark Hasty mhasty@blounttn.org
Scott Helton shelton@blounttn.org
Gerald Kirby GKIRBY@BLOUNTTN.ORG
Holden Lail hlail@blounttn.org
Peggy Lambert pklambert@blounttn.org
Mike Lewis lewism@greenecountybank.com
Ken Melton kmelton@blounttn.org
Jerome Moon jmoon@blounttn.org
Monika Murrell monika29@charter.net
Steve Samples ssamples@att.net
Gordon Wright gwright@blounttn.org
Careful, if they're like Knox County commissioners, they'll put a murder contract on your head...
New York City residents who want to own a gun may soon be denied permits if they are litterbugs, if they are bad drivers, or if they have fallen behind on a few bills.
Under proposed revisions to the police department's handgun, rifle and shotgun permit procedures, the NYPD can reject gun license applicants for a number of reasons, including:
If they have been arrested or convicted of almost any "violation," in any state; having a "poor driving history"; having been fired for "circumstances that demonstrate lack of good judgment"; having "failed to pay legally required debts"; being deemed to lack "good moral character"; or if any other information demonstrates "other good cause for the denial of the permit."
Critics say many of the restrictions are vague, have nothing to do with one's fitness to own a gun and are unconstitutional.
Supporters say the new restrictions will make gun purchasing more efficient and don't give the NYPD any more power than it already has.
According to a Report of the Governmental Affairs Division, the changes came about as the result of two recent Supreme Court decisions.
"In District of Columbia v. Heller the Court found that a District of Columbia law banning the possession of handguns in the home was invalid due to the rights conferred by the Second Amendment; in McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., the Court applied that right equally to the States," the report says.
As result, Councilman Peter F. Vallone Jr., chairman of the Public Safety Committee, introduced a proposal to lower the city's fees for gun permits to ones that more accurately reflect what the city spends to issue them.
"Now the fees are going to be much less and they're going to have a relationship to the amount of administrative costs that are involved, and in that way it will withstand the Constitution and the court challenge that most people expect will be coming down the road," Vallone told FoxNews.com.
The current $340 fee for all pistol licenses would be lowered to $70 for a premises license and $110 for a carry license. Rifle and shotgun permits would drop from $140 to $65. Costs for license renewals would also be significantly reduced.
With the lower fees, the New York Police Department also introduced revisions to the police department's gun permit procedures, which, unlike Vallone's bill, need only approval from the mayor's office, not the City Council.
"Although I do have oversight capability and I can have a hearing on it, I don't have any formal say in it," Vallone said.
Councilmember Dan Halloran says those revisions are intended to give the police more power to deny licenses, which could counter a possible spike in gun ownership triggered by the lower fees.
But Halloran and Vallone say the proposed restrictions give the NYPD so much authority that they violate the Second Amendment.
"The disqualification categories are downright scary. They're completely open to interpretation and they really don't measure anybody's fitness to own a gun," Halloran told FoxNews.com.
He pointed to a restriction stating applicants can be denied if they've "been arrested, indicted or convicted for a crime or violation, except minor traffic violations."
"So now the city can deny a permit for a building code violation, a sanitation ticket for failing to sweep the sidewalk … an array of non-criminal acts," Halloran said.
Another troublesome restriction, Halloran said, is one that allows permit denial if "the applicant has failed to pay legally required debts such as child support, taxes, fines or penalties imposed by governmental authorities."
"So people who are in foreclosure, or have credit card judgments, maybe filed bankruptcy, can now be legally denied," he said.
Applicants can also be denied, under the new restrictions, if they've "been terminated from employment under circumstances that demonstrate lack of good judgment or lack of good moral character."
"It seems to me it's more of an application to be pope than to be a gun owner," Vallone said. "I don't know anyone who would pass this thing. Anyone who has ever tried marijuana or has a bad driving history, lost a job regarding a lack of judgment – those are ridiculous criteria for gun ownership."
But Jason Post, a spokesman for Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office, said nothing in the proposal gives police a power they don't already have.
"The revisions will make the application process more efficient and give more clarity to applicants for gun licenses," Post told FoxNews.com in an e-mail.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, agreed, saying the changes appear to be a "fleshing out" of existing gun restrictions, and not an expansion of them.
"I think it's a good faith attempt by New York City authorities to make sure that their restrictions comply with the Constitution standards that the Supreme Court's adopted over the last two years," he told FoxNews.com.
While some restrictions, like paying legally required debts, may seem irrelevant to critics, Helmke says they are not.
"Child support, taxes, fines and governmental penalties I think are legitimate things. Basically, if someone's not complying with what the government requires of somebody, that's usually a sign that you can't trust them to follow the rules with something like a gun," he said.
As for whether the rule could apply to failure to pay a cable TV bill, as Halloran implied, Helmke said, "I think he's stretching it there."
Halloran said the biggest problem is that the rules are open to that kind of interpretation, and he pointed to the clause that reads that applicants can be denied for failure "to provide information requested by the License Division or required by this chapter" or "other information demonstrates an unwillingness to abide by the law, a lack of candor towards lawful authorities, a lack of concern for the safety of oneself and/or other persons and/or for public safety, and/or other good cause for the denial of the license," as the most obvious example.
"Could this be any more vague and open ended?" he asked. "Ask yourself, would any other constitutional right be subject to such vagaries? Imagine these requirements put to be eligible to vote, to have a lawyer, to be secure in your person or possessions, your right to a jury."
Former federal prosecutor and constitutional law expert Douglas Burns said that while the Heller and McDonald cases allow guns to be regulated closely, New York's proposal has some legal issues.
"If left unchanged, I think there could be some problems in court with it," Burns told FoxNews.com in an e-mail.
With a few adjustments, though, the proposal could be made to stand up in court, he said.
"I think like any proposed amendments, it has to be fine-tuned -- you can't leave in "violations other than traffic" because under NYS law a violation is not a criminal offense, so I think that's a problem. Also, as I said, the debt payment and job-firing language has to be fine-tuned; it is too broad.... I think the legislator does raise some valid concerns."
The council is due to vote on the price changes, which are expected to pass, and to advise the police department on the restriction changes Wednesday.
Should the department decide to go forward with the proposed changes, Vallone says he is "seriously considering having an oversight hearing on this topic"
The NYPD did not respond to a request for comment.
Dragonater Comment:This law brought to you by those nice copkillers who bombed NYC on 9/11...
Today I received a plea for help from the Tawakoni Area TEA Party. They have a Mayor that is out of control and hates the TEA Party too. He has fired 2 long time officers for no other apparent reason than the simple fact that they belong to the local TEA Party chapter.
West Tawakoni is a small town in East Texas, they don’t have a lot of TEA Party members and I am not sure how well connected to the media they are, but I know how connected I am, and I know that I have friends in the powerful, and LARGE Dallas TEA Party. I an certain that they will want to get involved in this.
This has been sent to Drudge, Breitbart, FOX and Friends, several local media here in the Dallas area, but I can’t stress this enough, the MEDIA needs to get ALL OVER this one. If you have ANY contacts in the media, send this to them.
The media, and most of Conservative America got their knickers in a twist over Juan Williams being fired by NPR, a case that was, in MY opinion, a libber reaping what he had sown, but if Conservative America can get involved and outraged over that, what will their reaction to this be?
I sincerely hope it’s not one of apathy.
Please, feel free to forward this to your email list and to ALL media that you may have contact with! It is that important!
From Lake Tawakoni Area TEA Party News
On October 20, 2010 Police Chief Jack Schultz was put on 10 days unpaid suspension at which time he will be terminated. This is a man that has served this city for twenty years and acts as a fatherly figure to his community while keeping us safe.
Sergeant John Becket has Proudly & Bravely served his community for over nine years and operates as a protector and referee of the law instead of a small town speed trap cop as the mayor has publicly announced he wants in he new police department.
These are the sole actions of Mayor Pete Yoho and are being done against the will of the majority of the city council.
Sorry but WE THE PEOPLE do not ACQUIESCE !!! SOURCE
From Stormin’ Norman:
Re-Call Time For Mayor Yoho…run him out of town!
Mayor Pete Yoho has to go! The citizens of Lake Tawakoni have the right to re-call the mayor and fire him. They can do this at any time they see fit and apparently the time is fit! This has got to be the most un-American action taken by any mayor in the history of the country. Did the mayor of Chicago get rid of Barack Obama as a community organizer for Obama’s ties to the Communist Party USA? You just don’t fire someone for their political party affiliation…Oh, but we’re going to do that on November 2nd !!! ~ Norman E. Hooben
From Texas TEA Parties:
Police Chief Suspended and Police Officer terminated for affiliation with Tea Party-West Tawakoni, TX Friday, October 22nd, 2010 Subject: City Council Meeting in Tawakoni October 26, 2010 ATTENTION ALL TEA PARTY MEMBERS
As most of you all know Johnny Beckett was terminated as an Police officer in West Tawakoni Wednesday Oct 20th and Chief Jack Schultz on Suspension by the Mayor of West Tawakoni Pete Yoho. The main reason for this action is their affiliation with the Tea Party. During last Tuesday nights meeting the Mayor publicly slandered the LTATP, Jack Schultz, Johnny Beckett, Candy Schultz, Bill Creed, Ed Watson, Carol Soloman, Laura Beckett, and my self. We need all members of the Tea Party to be at the next meeting at city hall Tue, Oct 26th at p.m.. These men are great officers and deserve all of our support. Chief Schultz has been on the police force for many many years and he also served as a volunteer fireman when ever needed. Help is needed. SOURCE
From American and Proud:
Police Chief and Sgt Fired for Tea Party Activities? Posted on October 26, 2010 by Robert
From TexasFred by way of Lake Tawakoni Area News
This, if true is disgusting. Evidently these men were fired because of their tea party affiliations. They were exercising their 1st amendment rights to assemble and to speak their mind. They felt drawn to the Tea Party patriots and an idiot mayor decided they had to go for their actions? Fire up the torches boys we got a target in Lake Tawakoni!
