"...Because I Said So"
While the majority of law enforcement officials seem to be upstanding, truthful individuals, the law often requires something more than a mere statement or assertion by a law enforcement official in order to justify the performance of certain actions. For example, search warrants are often held invalid where the entire reason for the issuance of a warrant is that a law enforcement official told a magistrate that he simply knew or believed there was illegal activity going on inside the place to be searched. In a similar vein, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals recently overturned a conviction for driving on a revoked license because the only proof presented by the state was the testimony of two detectives stating that they ran a computer check on the defendant's license and it showed as suspended.
This case, styled State v. Chesney, highlights the plethora of problems that can surface when such evidence forms the basis for a conviction at trial. The testimony of the detectives as to the results of the computer check actually sheds no light on the issue of whether the defendant's license was actually suspended. Computers and the humans who use them are prone to mistakes, and it is a fairly frequent occurrence for someone's license to show up as suspended when it is not because someone somewhere mixed up a number or two. Likewise, some individuals who have their licenses suspended can take months to actually show up in the system. Thus, the computer check is not at all conclusive as to the issue of the license suspension. In this case, the state should have produced a certified copy of the defendant's driver's license or some other form of proof that could show the steps that were taken by the detectives to check the status of the defendant's license. The vague statement that computer checks were ran and returned a certain result simply leaves too many questions unanswered as to the accuracy of the investigatory process.
Most individuals would assume that the testimony of the detectives would be enough to sustain a conviction for driving on a revoked license, which is why the assistance of a skilled criminal defense attorney who is well-versed in the necessities of proof at trial can make or break a defendant's case. An experienced East Tennessee criminal defense attorney can help the defendant force the prosecution to prove every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, giving the defendant the best chance to succeed at trial.
Source: State v.
Chesney, 36 TAM 20-20, 3/24/11, Nashville, Ogle, 10 pages.
Bookmark: 
